Sitting of 15 June 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police Officers
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What representations he has received from chief constables about the number of police officers needed in England. [44241]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As police authority for London, I have continuing discussions with the Commissioner about police numbers and other matters in the metropolis. Four chief constables in England made representations about various aspects of this year's police funding settlement, but none made specific mention of police officer numbers. Chief constables understand that, under legislation passed by the previous Government, it is for them to determine the number of police officers in their force on the basis of the resources available to them.
    Mr. Hughes: The Home Secretary will, no doubt, have read the letter written, at the end of last month, by the
    2
    Association of Police Authorities that makes it clear that the level of Government funding over recent years has been insufficient to sustain police numbers. Given that numbers have decreased in recent years, will the Home Secretary tell the House whether the comprehensive spending review will guarantee that in each of the three years to come, for which it is responsible, there will be an increase in police numbers across England and Wales?
    Mr. Straw: We made resources available to the police forces in England and Wales for this year that, to quote one of the chief constables who made representations to us,
    "were more than originally envisaged."
    The hon. Gentleman will have to await the results of the comprehensive spending review, but I can tell him that, as at June 1998, police numbers in the Walworth and Peckham areas that he represents increased by 20 compared with last year.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that however many police officers are recruited, they should be able competently to investigate crime? Is he aware that many of us are shocked by the details of police incompetence and indifference that have emerged from the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence? I praise my right hon. Friend for setting up the inquiry, but is he aware that when it is completed, many questions will be asked and certainly those in senior positions in the police force in London may be asked whether it is right for them to continue in their job?
    Mr. Straw: I established the judicial inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence and surrounding matters under powers under the Police Act 1997. Given that the inquiry still continues, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it until I have received the report.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) just said, is not the Home Secretary aware that the strength of the police in post

    3
    increased by more than 15,000, or 14 per cent., under the previous Conservative Government? However, the question does not relate to our record, but to what the Government will do. Will the Home Secretary at least give an assurance that when new legislation adds new duties to the police, he will recognise that there is an unanswerable case for more police on the ground?
    Mr. Straw: One thing that we shall not do is make promises that we shall not fulfil. Police numbers may have risen up to 1992 by the relatively small percentage that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but he forgot to mention that crime doubled in that period. Moreover, between 1992 and 1997, the previous Government promised that police numbers would rise by 5,000, but instead they fell by 765. We intend to ensure that police forces have the resources that they need, but we shall bear in mind the sage words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who said:
    "There is an enormous variation in the performance of police forces."
    It is crucial that we deal with police forces' output, as well as their input.

    Crime Victims
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What steps he is taking to ensure that the concerns of victims of crime are taken into account in the criminal justice system. [44242]
    14. Mr. Ben Chapman: What recent steps he has taken to help victims of crime. [44256]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We promised in our manifesto to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses. I established an interdepartmental working group on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses within two months of coming to office. Last week, I published its report. The report has more than 70 recommendations to give better protection to witnesses and victims and so ensure that more criminals are convicted.
    Mr. Dismore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that although there are good relations between the local Victim Support branch in Barnet and the local Metropolitan police, there are considerable difficulties with automatic police referrals of the victims of serious crime to Victim Support? That has resulted in some victims not getting the help that they need, owing to a rather restrictive interpretation by the Metropolitan police of the data protection rules. As the authority for the Metropolitan police in London, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that they refer as many victims as they possibly can to Victim Support branches under the automatic rules?
    Mr. Straw: I shall certainly raise the matter with the Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon. There is a difficulty in police forces across the country to do with differing interpretations of whether the Data Protection Act restricts the flow of information in the manner that my hon. Friend has described. The Crime and Disorder Bill, which has almost completed its passage through the House, should
    4
    clarify matters and enable police forces, without worry, to ensure that such information is passed on to Victim Support in appropriate circumstances.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that victims of rape are an especially vulnerable group when they appear in court, and that urgent action is needed to support them? What steps does he propose to take?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, which causes concern throughout the House and across the country. He will be pleased to learn that the interdepartmental working group's report contains explicit recommendations in respect of prohibiting cross-examination by the defendant in person—with provision for the defendant to be given lawyer —and in respect of severe restrictions on the cross-examination of the victim's previous sexual history.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). The right hon. Gentleman will know that the anxieties of the victims of crime would be considerably alleviated if they knew that there was continuing support from the Government for local Victim Support schemes, not least in places such as Barnet, which do invaluable work. I understand that Barnet has the lowest crime rate of any London borough, but the service is still much needed and the Government's continuing support would be much appreciated.
    Mr. Straw: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks. As one sign of that, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last June that the subvention for Victim Support this year was increased by £1 million. We greatly value its work across the country.
    Sir Norman Fowler: What powers are there under existing law to compensate the victims of crime when the crimes are committed outside this country by people who usually live here? We shall obviously support any measures that the right hon. Gentleman takes against those found guilty of violence in Marseilles—their actions are obviously unacceptable—but what can be done to compensate the innocent victims of crime and make the guilty pay?
    Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks, with which I wholly associate myself and the Government. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I unreservedly condemn what happened in Marseilles yesterday and today. The whole country feels betrayed by the treacherous behaviour of this criminal element who so besmirch the name of English football and undermine our nation's reputation.
    I spoke this morning with the French Minister of the Interior, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, and apologised to him for the disgraceful behaviour of the English hooligans, emphasising again our full support for the French police in dealing swiftly and vigorously with those who cause such disorder.
    The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that issues of compensation are primarily a matter for the countries in which the disorder and crime occur, but I am arranging for the matter to be discussed urgently with the French Minister of the Interior.

    Public Events (Policing)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What public events require the payment of policing charges. [44243]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Chief officers of police decide when to make a charge for providing a special police service, for example policing football matches. A charge is normally made where the event concerned takes place on private property, or is arranged by a commercial organisation, or the policing work falls outside the police's core duty to keep the peace and protect life and property.
    Mr. Pike: Is not the Lancashire constabulary completely out of order in trying to charge football clubs in Lancashire for what is known as the reserve—police off the ground? That is a matter completely for the police, as it would be in the case of any public event. There is no dispute about the fact that police on the football ground are charged for, but those in the reserve and off the ground are a matter for the police to determine, and pay for themselves.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is for the chief constable to decide policing needs. Forces should charge for officers deployed inside the ground, where the chief constable believes that they are necessary to preserve order, and for any reserves that are needed in order to do so. The courts and the Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster endorsed that view. Officers deployed outside the ground are usually there at public expense, even if they are marshalling fans towards the ground. I understand that one of the issues at Burnley is whether officers held in the reserve outside the ground are to be included in the charging provisions. I hope that those issues can be resolved locally, as they have been elsewhere.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister agree that the football clubs who pay those charges, and the police, have, by their co-operation, achieved a remarkable improvement in behaviour surrounding English football, and that many of the people who have caused trouble in the past are no longer to be seen at English football matches? When so much has been achieved, is it not that much greater a matter of concern that a travelling circus of drunken hooligans, some of whom may have had neither the intention nor the hope of attending an England football match in France, are giving the game a bad name?
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Much good work has been done by football clubs and the police—and by the House, with restriction orders and so on—to improve the position at football grounds in our country. It is shameful that the behaviour of a minority of the fans who have gone to France for the football match have besmirched the name of English football. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we need to ensure that we co-operate with the French, to tackle these people—the right hon. Gentleman rightly chides me for describing them as fans—who go abroad and damage our country's reputation.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Given the earlier exchanges, and the great effort that has been made to
    6
    exchange with other policing authorities information about football hooligans, is the Minister not a little worried that, in this case, there seems to have been some failure of intelligence, or of the application of intelligence? Although we do not want to be wise before we know all the facts, is it not extremely important that we examine, with the French and other authorities, whether there is some failure to translate information into action?
    Mr. O'Brien: We have kept in very close contact with the French authorities via the National Criminal Intelligence Service and by direct contact between the Interior Ministry in France and the Home Office here. Liaison has been very good. We have exchanged information available to us about people who are likely to cause problems, and at the moment our information is that the French authorities have acted very well on that. There is no evidence that there has been any failure on the French authorities' part to deal with those issues.
    We believe that we have simply been let down by those people who have gone to the match from England. In a sense, we owe an apology to the French for the behaviour of some of the people that have travelled from England to France. We need to ensure that we continue that co-operation with the French authorities; we are committed to doing so.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was near enough a racing certainty that there would be trouble as soon as the match was designated for Marseille? It was an open invitation to the English National Front to fight the French National Front.
    Mr. O'Brien: There are no excuses for the way in which the fans have behaved. We know from experience of British football matches that, all too often, extremist right-wing organisations—such as the National Front and the British National party—engage some of their supporters in disruptive behaviour surrounding matches. We need to ensure that we have in place the means of dealing with those elements, and that we keep the French authorities informed about any information that we have about extremist right-wing elements that may be seeking to encourage English fans to behave disruptively.

    Crime (Chelmsford)
    Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the level of crime in the Chelmsford area. [44244]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): In 1997, 9,339 offences were recorded by the Chelmsford police division. That is about 10 per cent. lower than the level of recorded crime there in 1996.
    Mr. Burns: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Essex police and neighbourhood watch schemes on that impressive fall in crime, which contradicts the soundbites from Home Office Ministers about rising crime and shows that in the last few years of the previous Government, crime overall was falling? Does the Minister share my concern that in the previous financial year, £1.1 million was allocated for the creation of 55 extra constables in Essex, but the money was used to create

    7
    only 28 extra officers? Will he liaise with the Essex police authority to find out why we did not get the full number of police constables?
    Mr. Howarth: First, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Essex police. Crime in the county has fallen by 11 per cent. to 90,158 offences. That compares with a fall of 9 per cent. across England as a whole. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as he has just congratulated the chief constable, I am sure that he will agree that it is for the chief constable to decide how to deploy his resources. The hon. Gentleman just said that those resources had been deployed effectively, so I am not sure what his point is.

    Young Offenders (Parents)
    Mr. David Drew: What steps he will take to ensure that support and guidance is given to the parents of young offenders. [44246]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Our radical reform of the youth justice system will ensure greater focus on support and guidance to parents of young offenders. We are introducing parenting orders to encourage parents to accept their responsibilities for their children's behaviour. These orders will allow courts to direct that parents exercise control over their children, and require parents to receive training and guidance.
    Mr. Drew: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Audit Commission report, which highlighted the serious shortcomings in the juvenile justice system? With that in mind, how will he respond to the report and, in particular, deal with the minority of serious offenders who clearly need much more help from their parents?
    Mr. Straw: The recent Audit Commission report, which brought up to date the findings of the Audit Commission in 1996, painted a lamentable picture of the state of the youth justice system. Our proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill represent the first stage of our major reform of the youth justice system. One way in which we shall deal with persistent young offenders is by the fast track for persistent offenders. I am pleased to tell the House that, although at the last election there were only eight pilot schemes for fast-tracking such offenders, there are now more than 100 schemes.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The new parenting orders to which the Home Secretary referred may be a useful tool in combating crime, as long as they distinguish between parents who will not parent and those who simply cannot parent. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, through guidance and other measures, he will ensure that the parenting orders do not set individual parents up for failure, when it is apparent that their circumstances make it impossible for them to control their children?
    Mr. Straw: If there are parents who cannot parent, they should not have responsibility at all for their children, and those children ought to be in the care of the local authority. The overwhelming majority of parents must accept responsibility for their children. That responsibility lasts as long as the children are children.
    8
    The purpose of our proposals for parenting orders is to ensure that parents no longer seek to excuse their own behaviour and lack of control of their children or the behaviour of their children who are young offenders, and accept that all too often their children's misbehaviour is partly to do with their own failure to exercise proper control over those children. Such parents will be offered advice and guidance on how to improve their parenting skills.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. David Hanson: What plans he has to reduce the level of crime committed by young people. [44248]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Crime and Disorder Bill includes a number of proposals to help reduce the level of crime committed by young people. These plans are intended to nip offending behaviour in the bud, to reduce delay and to achieve better co-ordination of youth justice services.
    Mr. Hanson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on some estates in my constituency, young people are still abusing many of my constituents physically and verbally? Those young people are involved in criminal behaviour, such as vandalism, and the Government's proposals will certainly tackle such problems. Will my right hon. Friend look, in the longer term, at the reasons for social exclusion so that we may begin to integrate those young people into society at large?
    Mr. Straw: We accept that we must tackle the underlying causes of social exclusion. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established the social exclusion unit, and a raft of programmes, from the welfare-to-work programme to provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill, are under way. They will give the police and local education authorities special powers to tackle truancy on the streets.
    However, we know also that many of those who live in deprived areas and who are socially excluded commit no offences whatsoever. Therefore, it is very important that we do not excuse the misbehaviour of a minority and ensure the rapid passage and enforcement of the measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill that are designed to tackle bad behaviour by both juveniles and adults.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on his authoritative and statesmanlike response to the previous question, which placed responsibility for the conduct of young people firmly upon their parents? They should not be allowed to resile from that responsibility. Does the Home Secretary agree that closed circuit television systems have proved extremely effective in identifying criminals and preventing crime? I thank him for the closed circuit television systems that have been developed in the main town centre area of my constituency and in Stubbington. Does the Home Secretary agree that they are cost-effective and should be encouraged further?
    Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for both parts of his question. There is no doubt that closed circuit television systems that are properly planned,

    9
    properly introduced and properly monitored can have an important effect on reducing crime and disorder and, above all, on reducing people's fear of crime and enabling them to use public space better.
    Ms Hazel Blears: The Home Secretary will be aware of the task force that has been established to tackle crime and disorder in Langworthy in my constituency of Salford. That task force involves Government, council, police and Victim Support working together to tackle the huge problems in that area. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the task force and local people—many of whom are good, law-abiding citizens—will continue to have the Government's full support in trying to improve their community and make it a safer place in which to live?
    Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, I am aware of the deep concerns of the residents in the Langworthy area of Salford as a result of my visit there two months ago. The task force that has been established to tackle serious problems in that area—not the least of which is criminality by a minority—enjoys the Government's full support. It is a very good example of the kind of inter-agency co-operative working that is the best approach to reducing crime and disorder in such areas in the long term.
    Mr. John Greenway: In their five early pledges, the Government promised to cut youth crime by halving the time that it takes to bring young offenders to court. How early is early? Where is the evidence of any progress in that area? Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Government do not expect to meet that pledge, as so many of their proposals—he referred earlier to the first stage—have yet to be tested and there are no new resources for the police or the probation service with which to implement them? This is the fourth early pledge that the Government have broken. When will the Prime Minister have the confidence to publish his report on the Government's first year achievements? If and when he does, will it not show that things have got worse rather than better?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should hang his head in shame for coming to the Dispatch Box to talk about youth crime when the Government of which he was a supporter presided over a situation where more and more young criminals committed crimes and fewer and fewer went before the courts. It has fallen to us to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman asks when we will do so. The powers that we have to take to implement the proposals have not even gone through this House yet. It was one of the first Bills we introduced and, with luck, it will become law before the end of July. Serious progress will be made then. When we took office, we found—contrary to the synthetic comments that we have just heard—that the previous Government did not even collect information on the number of persistent young offenders, still less do anything about it. One hundred pilot areas have been established, and we will implement that pledge—like the rest of the manifesto—well before the next election.
    Mr. David Borrow: In my constituency, the overwhelming concern is juvenile crime. At a meeting
    10
    with the local police on Friday, I found that they—unlike Tory Members—were convinced that the Crime and Disorder Bill would do much to deal with juvenile crime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents would be much better listening to the concerns and views of the local police in South Ribble than to the carping comments of Tory Members?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His constituents and mine have the benefit of the care and service provided by the Lancashire constabulary. It was not least because of concerns raised by Lancashire police over many years that we developed the proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill for anti-social behaviour orders and the raft of reforms of juvenile justice.
    On resources, one of the things that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) failed to notice in the Audit Commission reports of 1996 and last month is that not only do so many persistent young offenders get away with it—thanks to the inefficiency of the system that the previous Government left us—but that millions of pounds is wasted as a result of that inefficiency. Our changes are designed to ensure that more persistent offenders are dealt with more swiftly, and that resources are far more adequately and efficiently used.

    Indecency Offences (Children)
    Mr. John Bercow: What plans he has to increase the maximum sentence for indecency with children. [44249]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The maximum penalty for gross indecency with a child aged under 14—which is different from indecent assault—was increased by this Government from two years to 10 years' imprisonment as recently as 1 October last year when we brought into force section 52 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. We have no evidence to suggest that a further increase in the maximum penalty is needed. However, we do need to make sure that the system of offences and penalties is coherent and effective. I can tell the House today that we will review the law relating to sexual offences generally and we will look at this specific issue as part of that review.
    Mr. Bercow: Would the Minister explain to the House why the Government opposed the Conservative amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill to increase from 10 years to life the maximum sentence for indecency with children, when this would have left the freedom with the courts to pass an appropriate sentence and would have allowed the more serious offenders to be released only when they no longer posed any threat to any children? Is this not a case of the Government being soft on criminals and tough on the child victims of those criminals?
    Mr. Michael: No, Madam Speaker—it is a case of a Back-Bench Member being tough on the English language and soft on his thinking. Only last year, the Conservative party thought that 10 years was a perfectly adequate sentence. With the irresponsibility of Opposition, it wants to make everything subject to a life sentence. The reason we turned that down—as I explained in Committee, as the

    11
    hon. Gentleman will see if he takes the trouble to read Hansard—was because it was our intention to have a coherent review of the offences and the penalties to make sure that sexual crimes, particularly against children, were dealt with effectively, properly and coherently. We will do that.
    Ms Sally Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and the changes that have been made to penalties for sex offenders. Is he aware that some of my constituents will welcome very much the changes—for example, the family of Jason Swift, who was killed by a member of the Cooke gang? What thought has my hon. Friend given to introducing indeterminate sentences to make it possible for sex offenders to be kept in prison for as long as they are a risk—a much more effective way of dealing with the problem than simply introducing blanket, long-term sentences which would not address the main problem?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. The horrific example to which she referred makes it clear why we must take responsibility, not only for punishing people after the event, but for managing risk and for ensuring that risk does not turn into danger or an event involving a victim. We have already implemented the Sex Offenders Act 1997, and we have worked with the police and the probation service to make sure that the information required under it is used to protect children and vulnerable adults, rather than gathering dust on file or sitting in a computer.
    The sex offender orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill will plug a further gap by enabling courts to take action where it is clear that someone poses a risk. We shall consider indeterminate sentences in the review that I have announced. My hon. Friend understands the sensitivities that have to be observed and the careful thought that has to be given to the matter. We shall give it that thought.

    Sex Offenders
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: What plans he has to change the licensing arrangements when releasing sex offenders from gaol. [44250]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Crime and Disorder Bill makes provision for the extended supervision of offenders following release from prison. The Bill gives the courts power to order additional supervision of up to 10 years in those cases. Offenders will be liable to be recalled to prison if they breach their licence conditions.
    Miss Kirkbride: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I draw her attention to a case in my constituency in which a convicted paedophile was released into a small village community on a licence condition lasting only four months. I understand from a previous answer that the Government reject the Conservative option of optional life sentences, but will she consider whether there are, in those revolting cases of sexual abuse of children, grounds for licensing conditions on release to be extended as far as the natural life of the offender, when the relevant authorities consider that that person still poses a risk to the community?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Lady has written to me about that case, and I have responded. She is to meet the agencies
    12
    in her area which, I understand, are co-operating effectively to try to cope with the situation in respect of the individual concerned. Our proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill will make the situation much more satisfactory. The sex offender orders are liable to apply to that individual if he appears to present a risk, and, indeed, to other individuals. The measures in the Bill, including the sex offender orders and extended supervision, will go a great way towards tackling the problem.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Some sex offenders have had two or three cases brought against them, served different sentences and been released back to the same community again and again. Will my hon. Friend examine those cases and what goes on in prison, and will she consider the issue of psychiatric care and the concerns about that?
    Ms Quin: There are sex offender treatment programmes in prison which have been shown to be effective. We are conducting research into the way in which they have been carried out to discover what further lessons we can learn. It is also important that the prison and probation authorities work closely together. That is one reason behind the Government's prison and probation review: we believe that, in areas such as risk assessment and exchanging information about people who have been in prison and who are under supervision in the community, the two services could do a great deal in co-operation to reduce risk to the community.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said, may I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled bishop of Medway, who was convicted in the mid-1970s of offences against young people? Two months ago, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. Is not the lesson of that case that information of past offences was available, but was not passed on, not only to organisations, but to the parents of the young people? If there was a central register, which I support, would the information on it be publicly accessible?
    Ms Quin: The important point is for the agencies that manage cases to have the information and to share it between them. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that information has not always been transmitted between agencies as it should have been. Our approach, particularly the partnership approach, is aimed at improving the flow of information so that people do not fall through the net and the system works effectively in the public's interest.

    Police Management
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the strategic management capacity of police forces. [44251]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): Since 1992, all applicants for appointment in the most senior police ranks must have attended the strategic command course at the police staff college, which is intended to develop and enhance senior officers'

    13
    capacity to exercise strategic management and leadership. We are considering how best to promote continued training and development for those who achieve Association of Chief Police Officers ranks.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the training of senior managers in the police force tends to be exclusive and inward-looking, and that good management is good management? Is not it about time that we started to expose senior police officers to the best management schools in the world, if not in the country, because strategic management is strategic management?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some senior officers have gone to great lengths to expand their own training and experience, and to look at the quality of management developed outside the police service, while others have not. My right hon. Friend and I, with officials and ACPO, are looking at how we can develop the quality of training. As I said in my first reply, we are considering how to encourage and improve continued training and development once officers achieve ACPO rank.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will estimate the impact of the implementation of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] on the prison population in the next three years. [44252]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The prison population will always largely depend on the sentencing decisions of the courts. The provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill will help to target the use of prison on serious offenders. The Government's policies are aimed at early effective intervention to turn young offenders away from crime and possible later imprisonment. Home detention curfew in the Bill is intended to free up some 3,000 prison places a year.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister consider the Bill's effect on the provision of prison places for serious sexual offenders? Will she assure the House that a serious sexual offender will never be released from prison earlier than he or she would otherwise have been if he or she is considered for electronic tagging, and that that would not be an acceptable reason for releasing serious sexual offenders earlier?
    Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said that serious sexual offenders would not qualify for home detention curfew unless there were exceptional circumstances. It is important to bear in mind the fact that, in general, home detention curfew will operate only after a stringent risk assessment.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If there is a shortage of prison space as a result of the implementation of the Bill, why do we not substantially reinforce the resources available to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will meet in Birmingham and which is responsible for establishing whether there have been miscarriages of justice, as I believe happened in the case of Owen Oyston? If the commission were given the resources, the inevitable consequences would be that more
    14
    people would be released from prison, more spaces would become available and we would be able to deal with any additional offenders who were put into custody.
    Ms Quin: We have increased the availability of prison spaces to accommodate people sent to us by the courts. The Government strongly support the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and very much endorse its approach and work. However, in terms of the prison population, we believe that home detention curfew plus the other measures that the Government support, such as effective use of community sentences, are the best way for the criminal justice system to proceed in the future.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister accept that members of the public believe that the prison sentence passed should be the prison sentence served? What message are the Government sending to the public by introducing measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill whereby although maximum sentences of six months are passed in magistrates courts, no defendants will ever serve more than six weeks if they behave properly?
    Ms Quin: The Government are committed to enabling the courts, when sentence is passed, to tell people exactly what that sentence means in practice. We feel strongly about that because it is important for the public to know that information. The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the home detention curfew. It will mean a reduction in prison places, and we think that it is right because it involves a managed transition from custody to release. The structure that it imposes on offenders is one of its most valuable aspects.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now imperative to have a range of stringent, community-based sentences that inspire the confidence of the public and sentencers because they are not easy options? What measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will promote such sentences? How will sentencers be encouraged to use them?
    Ms Quin: The probation service will have new responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will show the public that community sentences are worth while and effective. The action plan order and the reparation order will be particularly significant. Other important sentences will be served in the community under other orders in the Bill, such as the drug treatment and testing order.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the hon. Lady recognise that recent legislation, including that on mandatory sentencing, is contributing to a relentless rise in the prison population, which is likely to consume resources needed for rehabilitation inside and outside prison? Many of the good measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will require resources to be put into the probation service. If those resources are instead consumed by prison spending, we shall not be able to do the job that needs to be done.
    Ms Quin: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have a responsibility to imprison people who are sent to us by the courts, and that we must imprison serious offenders. However, the Crime and Disorder Bill contains

    15
    many effective measures that, through the emphasis on early action and intervention, will have a helpful effect, especially on young people. We hope that they will deter them from crime and, ultimately, imprisonment.
    Mr. James Clappison: Does not the risk assessment guidance say that in the prison population as a whole, prisoners will usually be eligible for home detention curfew and early release? Does that not drive a coach and horses through the principle of honesty in sentencing? As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) said, sentences will not mean what they say. What else can right-thinking members of the public conclude when a sentence of six months' imprisonment, which is the maximum that can be passed by magistrates courts, will mean in practice only six weeks spent in custody? How can that engender public confidence in sentencing?
    Ms Quin: First, the courts will spell out what sentences mean in practice. Secondly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to take a closer look at some of the electronic monitoring schemes in this country and in other parts of Europe. Schemes such as the home detention curfew are extremely effective in providing punishment for people and preparing them for ultimate release. The system that we are introducing will be tough and effective.

    Crime and Disorder Bill
    Mr. Keith Darvill: What plans he has to pilot provisions contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]. [44253]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): We plan to pilot a number of initiatives to tackle youth offending, such as measures to tackle delay in the youth justice system; the drug treatment and testing order; and the use of live television links between prison and court. Provided that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the summer, we plan to commence those pilots in the autumn.
    Mr. Darvill: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I also thank him for taking the time recently to visit Harold Hill in my constituency to witness the work of the partnership that is evolving between the police, the local authority and other agencies, including London Transport Buses. Does he agree that the best way to tackle crime in our towns and cities is through genuine partnerships with local communities, police and other organisations?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. However, as we saw when I visited his constituency, the process cannot be easy or immediate. There needs to be a commitment on the part of police and local authorities; they need to win the support of the local community, and they need to listen to members of that community, who best know the type of crime that spoils their lives. A commitment to such a partnership, and to cutting crime, is essential, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he is encouraging that in his constituency.

    Khat
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What representations he has received urging a ban on the sale of that. [44254]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): We have received one letter this year suggesting that khat should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. If, however, there is any new evidence on the matter, I shall be happy to consider it with a view to a further reference to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which last considered it 10 years ago.
    Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that khat is an addictive drug that causes stimulation of the person taking it, leading to euphoria and hallucinations? The person ends up stoned and unable to do anything. Is it not nonsensical that that drug can be legally imported and have value added tax charged on it, when cannabis—a much safer drug in these terms—cannot even be used for legitimate medical purposes, although many doctors are calling for that to be allowed?
    Does not the Minister consider the position slightly ridiculous? In view of the failure to make any progress in the drugs war, will he set up a royal commission immediately to investigate the use and misuse of drugs?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady will know that khat is regarded as coming within the terms of the Medicines Act 1968.
    With the Liberal Democrat party, the needle sometimes seems to get stuck. The hon. Lady trots out the same old line that her party has been trotting out for several years. She asks for a royal commission, but the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis would have only one result: more people would use it. If the hon. Lady wants to contemplate such a development, that is her business; the Government certainly will not.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not the lesson clear—that the prohibition of khat would not decrease but increase its use? It would increase the amount of khat crime, and would drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni populations and the police.
    The use of all banned drugs increases. Why do not the Front-Bench Members of the two main parties, and all the other parties, take an intelligent look at what is happening in Switzerland, for example? Drug-related crime in Zurich has recently been reduced by 80 per cent.; meanwhile, in this country it has increased by 30 per cent. In Holland, owing to a policy of decriminalisation, there are virtually no heroin users there under the age of 20, and the number of adult heroin users has fallen.
    The lesson is the same throughout the world. America, which has had a prohibition policy for many years, now has the worst drug problems in the world, and we in Britain have the worst drug problems in Europe. When will the Government set up a royal commission, so that we can reinforce the point that prohibition increases drug problems and decriminalisation reduces them?
    Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend wants to use international examples, he should consider Amsterdam. Its drug policy is far more lenient than ours, and its murder rate is three times higher.

    17
    My hon. Friend should not assume that he has a monopoly on intelligence about these matters. A wide body of evidence from throughout the world suggests that, if any currently illegal substances are decriminalised or too soft a line is taken on them, there can be only one outcome: more people will use those drugs, more people will be drawn into crime and there will be more serious social problems. The option offered by my hon. Friend, the Liberal Democrats and even some Tory Members is not viable. It simply would not work in this country, and it has not worked in any other country.

    Prisons (Commercial Activities)
    Mr. Howard Flight: If he will review the financial arrangements for commercial activities carried out within prisons. [44255]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The financial arrangements for commercial activities within prisons were recently reviewed, and I am pleased to announce that governors have been given increased flexibility in the use of income from commercial activities. That should enable them to use some additional income from increased industrial activity, which should further the goal of expanding prison industries—a goal to which the Government are firmly attached.
    Mr. Flight: My question was prompted by a recent visit to the Ford establishment in my constituency. In that establishment, commercial activities such as horticulture, metalwork, woodwork and laundry work do not have the investment capital that would enable them to bid for contracts. The trustees and the head of the prison told me that all the revenues were retained by the Treasury. Will the proposed changes specifically address the streamlining of investment decisions to gain maximum scope from commercial activities in prison?
    Ms Quin: The changes that I have announced will help reinvestment so that prison industries can expand in places such as Ford. I also understand that Ford is likely to take part in the workshop expansion scheme, which is an important part of our efforts to increase workshop activity within prisons.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What steps he is taking to ensure that there is early intervention with young offenders to prevent reoffending. [44260]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The Government are introducing a number of early intervention measures as part of their youth justice reform programme. These measures include the child safety order, local child curfews for children under the age of 10 and the final warning scheme for those above the age of criminal responsibility. New requirements for district or borough-based crime reduction strategies and new youth offending teams will provide a new focus for local action to cut crime. We are also providing new powers to allow the police to deal with truants.
    Mr. Khabra: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Audit Commission report on youth crime describes the
    18
    previous Government's appalling record in this area? Does he agree that truancy and exclusion are major causes for the commission of crime and reoffending by children? What steps is he taking to help parents to control their children's behaviour? Will he ensure that parents, and especially working parents, of children who do not go to school are given the support that will enable them to send their children to school?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to highlight truancy and school exclusion as problems. That is why the Government have looked at the matter across Departments and why the social exclusion unit gave it priority in its work. We have introduced in the Crime and Disorder Bill an amendment that will give the police the power to pick up youngsters and take them either back to a school or to another agreed place when they do so in partnership with education authorities. Making such a link between different problems and ensuring that local solutions are produced in partnership are two of the ways in which to remove the scourge of youth crime.

    Drugs and Crime
    18. Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What recent research he has commissioned into the link between drugs and crime. [44261]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Current research includes work on the criminal life styles of crack addicts; on the effects of treatment on addicts' criminal behaviour; and on developing performance indicators for police anti-drugs strategies. Consideration is also being given to extending a project on drug testing and interviewing arrestees, the first results of which were published in April.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: I remind my hon. Friend of a recent visit to my constituency by Mr. Keith Hellawell to examine a ground-breaking drugs initiative called Project Charlie at Culloden school. Its aim is to educate young children on the dangers of drugs. Does my hon. Friend agree that education is the way forward rather than the approach that has been advocated by the shadow health spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), whose support for the legalisation of all drugs is surely irresponsible and simplistic? He should be asked to withdraw that support.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. He will recall that I made a similar visit to his constituency some time ago. Part of the new strategy that Mr. Hellawell announced recently is to concentrate resources on helping young people of primary school age and older to resist the messages on drugs. My hon. Friend is right to note that in a book called "Saturn's Children", the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said:
    "The only completely effective way to ameliorate the drug problem, and especially the crime which results from it, is to bring the industry into the open by legalising the distribution and consumption of all dangerous drugs, or at the very least by decriminalising their consumption."
    My hon. Friend might reflect on the 0fact that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is now an Opposition Front-Bench health spokesmen.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
    1ST ALLOTTED DAY
    Considered in Committee.
    1ST ALLOTTED DAY
      SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair
        Clause 1

          SENTENCE REVIEW COMMISSIONERS
          3.30 pm
          Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 1, line 7, leave out
          'and one of them shall be appointed chairman'
          and insert
          'and shall appoint one of the legally qualified Commissioners as the Chairman'.
          The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'lawyer' to end of line 11.
          No. 18, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'any jurisdiction' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
          Mr. Ross: This will prove to be an interesting debate because, on Second Reading last week, we were promised that the Government would look very carefully at what was said and that we would be given the chance to probe and to get a clearer understanding of what exactly the Government are trying to do. Before the rise of the House this evening, we shall try to educate the country about what the Bill does.
          As the sentence review commissioners will apply what will become a complex area of law that will give rise to all sorts of allegations and cause much heartache, they need a legally qualified individual as chairman. That should be in the Bill. The pressures to let out that group of prisoners will be immense. We know the problems that arise whenever there is a backlash from the IRA or other terrorists groups. An immediate effort is made to find a way to placate them. We can be certain that the pressure will not decrease but increase over coming weeks and months. We shall be told that we should not be worried about the words in the Bill or their legal meaning but should proceed in the spirit of the agreement and that that will be what counts.
          Many people in Northern Ireland and, I am sure, many hon. Members, will not be happy with the spirit or understanding that will be applied to the measure by the thugs and murderers with whom we have to deal in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. The pressures, not least on the Government, from the Irish Republic and the terrorist organisations will be immense. The pressure from the Government on the chairman and commissioners when a well-known prisoner is up for release will also be immense. Pressure will be put on and signs given that that prisoner should be released. Given that, we need a person of strong character, good personality and sound judgment to stand up to those pressures.
          20
          We have not yet been told the exact composition of the commission—such as how many commissioners there will be; how many commissioners will be from Northern Ireland, from Great Britain, from Commonwealth nations or—more likely—from the Irish Republic; how many will be appointed at the instigation of the Government of the Irish Republic, through Maryfield; or how many will be appointed who have to be acceptable to the IRA or other terrorist groups. A whole series of questions have simply not been answered, but we have to know those answers. We have to know also that the person appointed as chairman will be someone who can stand up to the pressures that will be put on the commissioners.
          Amendment No. 46 has not been selected, but it is relevant to other amendments. Section 1(2) provides not only that
          "The Secretary of State shall so far as reasonably practicable ensure that at any time—
          (a) at least one of the Commissioners is a lawyer",
          but that one commissioner shall be expert in the mental health or psychology of the prisoners dealt with by commissioners. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, given some of the deeds that those prisoners have committed, there is good reason for including psychologists or other professionals in psychiatric treatment on panels. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that there is at least one lawyer and one mental health professional on each panel dealing with a prisoner's case.
          The other amendments in the group, which were tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), would accomplish the same objectives that I shall try to achieve in other amendments that I have tabled. I hope that all those amendments will be favourably mentioned by Ministers, and that the Government will accept them.
          The spirit of the agreement and of the Bill is such that the folk who will be most closely examining them are those who have been most directly affected by terrorist violence in Northern Ireland—over many years, they have been the victims and targets of that terrorist violence. Therefore, everyone in Northern Ireland, and all those who are further afield and take an interest in the matter, will want to be certain in their own mind that every care has been taken before any one of those individuals is released prematurely into the community.
          Mr. David Maclean: Amendment No. 26 would delete clause 1(2), which requires that, of the commissioners,
          "at least one is a psychiatrist".
          I merely say to Ministers: God help us if more than one commissioner is a psychiatrist.
          I should like to delete that provision for the simple reason that, based on my experience as a Minister in the previous Government, I do not think that the professions of psychiatry and psychology have anything to contribute in determining the important matter of releasing people who are potentially dangerous and could, in future, return to their terrorist ways.
          My experience in government has led me to distrust psychiatrists' advice on whether it is safe to release a prisoner. The relevant experience—which the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office will not share—for me in

          21
          the matter was dealing with prisoners who had committed some of the most appalling crimes of violence, but who, because of their mental health, were in some of the United Kingdom's most secure institutions, or in second-level secure institutions, such as Rampton and Broadmoor. For various technical legal reasons, approximately half of those prisoners are eligible to be released by a mental health review tribunal. The MHRTs not only contain a fair proportion of psychiatrists, but rely heavily on psychiatrists' advice. The other half, approximately, are released by Ministers of the Crown exercising their judgment.
          The Minister can check the veracity of this in Hansard, but if he analyses the number of prisoners released by the MHRT and those released by Ministers over the past 10, 15 or 20 years, he will discover that the reoffending rate of those released by an MHRT is about twice that of those released by Ministers. One could do an interesting analysis of why Ministers, who are not qualified psychiatrists but who take into account subjective judgments and who analyse reports from psychiatrists and advice from civil servants, have a 100 per cent. better success rate than an MHRT in judging the dangerousness of people being considered for release. Having done that task for some time, I can conclude only that all Ministers—those before me and, no doubt, those after me—were and are more reluctant to rely on the advice of psychiatrists alone. The only skills that I thought psychiatrists brought to the operation were incredible naivety and gullibility.
          Mr. Phil Willis: First, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that no psychiatrist should give advice to Ministers? Secondly, is it his reading of the Bill that the only advice that the commissioners will have at their disposal is that from those commissioners who are psychiatrists? That is not my reading of it.
          Mr. Maclean: The Bill provides that one of the commissioners shall himself be a psychiatrist, and that is the bit I am not happy about because I think that he would exercise undue influence over the other commissioners. It is the same in any circle when someone pops up and says that he is a doctor or a lawyer and that his opinion is therefore more important than that of the common herd. Insisting that one of the commissioners shall be a psychiatrist will give his opinion undue weight. I believe that psychiatrists' opinions are more suspect than those of other members who could be appointed and who are not schooled in that discipline but who are nevertheless capable of reading reports from psychiatrists and making their own judgment.
          Of course commissioners must have advice from psychiatrists, if appropriate, on the mental health of some of the individuals whom they are contemplating releasing. I hope and assume that they will get advice and reports from the Prison Service on prisoners who have been in the Maze. I assume that they will get reports from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and various other quarters and that they will come to a balanced judgment.
          The grave danger in allowing psychiatrists to hold a position of undue influence is that psychiatrists are obsessed with insight. Most of the time, the advice from psychiatrists that I considered rather dodgy was offered when psychiatrists were beguiled by the prisoner, who
          22
          suddenly said that he had got insight and realised that he had been wrong. He would say that he could now face up to his crime and was therefore eligible to be released. When a prisoner had that remarkable insight, acknowledged his crimes and said that he wanted to lead a straight life, it counted very highly with psychiatrists, whereas people with more balanced judgment did not give that insight so much weight. I shall no doubt receive letters from eminent psychiatrists complaining about my criticism of them as a genus or breed.
          Mr. Robert McCartney: Having had experience of psychiatrists and psychologists over more than 30 years as a practising barrister, I endorse almost everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about their comments and the effect that they have. Extraordinary gullibility is the hallmark of many of those who practise that rather bizarre form of medicine.
          3.45 pm
          Mr. Maclean: I should not go so far as to call it a bizarre form of medicine. I am saying only that, during my time as a Minister, in many of the cases that came to me, the advice from psychiatrists was bizarre in the extreme. In the case of someone who had been in a mental hospital for 20 years, exhibiting dangerous qualities for 19 of those years and then showing insight for nine or 10 months, they recommended to Ministers that he should be released.
          The statistics on the success rates of releases tell the story. Ministers, from whatever party, have to show their judgment, without necessarily having any great knowledge of, or qualification in, psychiatry. Of course they must not close their ears to advice from all quarters, but they must come to an opinion and make a judgment.
          The same is true of the commissioners. I should prefer a commissioner who does not have a law degree or a psychiatry degree, but instead has a sound grounding in common sense, having experience of working in industry or dealing with people in some other capacity. I want them to be good judges of human nature. Some clever criminals who have not been convicted of terrorist offences come before parole boards and review boards in the rest of the United Kingdom. They are highly adept at spinning a tale about how they are now reformed. We need commissioners who are capable of seeing through some of the wiles of those who will come before them. In my experience, qualified psychologists and psychiatrists are not the best at seeing through the wiles and the devious nature of some of their clients.
          Mr. Robert McCartney: I have spent more than 30 years at the Bar and have cross-examined and read reports from hundreds of psychiatrists and psychologists. Much of what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has said is commensurate with my experience. The Bill implies that psychiatry and psychology are interchangeable terms. They are two distinct sciences. Most reputable psychologists will say that their reports are not meant to make a diagnostic decision. They draw conclusions from a series of tests and methodologies. Almost invariably, a reputable psychologist will end his report by saying that his findings may be consistent with a condition but are not necessarily diagnostic of it, because there may be many medical conditions that can produce the same results.

          23
          I have been married to a practising psychologist for 37 years, so I have a domestic insight into reports and comments—and perhaps my wife has a domestic insight into me, but that is another matter.
          Mr. Clive Soley: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can assure us that he is talking about a marriage, not some special client relationship.
          Mr. McCartney: My wife would find more fertile fields in other characters.
          There is a bland assumption in the Bill that psychiatry and psychology are interchangeable. That is so far removed from the practice of the disciplines as to make one wonder who was responsible for the drafting of the Bill and whether they were in need of either of those disciplines.
          Mr. Kevin McNamara: During my career, I have read many legal opinions and I often wondered whether those who wrote them were themselves head cases and perhaps should have been referred to psychiatrists or psychologists. However, it ill becomes hon. Members to denigrate trained professionals who, in different capacities, have served their patients and the community well. It is a foolish thing to do.
          First, I shall comment on what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said about deleting psychiatrists and psychologists from the list. In my view, he misinterpreted the purpose of the Bill. Politically motivated prisoners resent the idea that psychiatrists or psychologists should be brought in to pontificate on, or judge, their offences; they believe that their offences were politically motivated and that they should be judged on that basis. However, some people who may have been involved in such offences may suffer from mental disturbance, and it may not be safe for them to be released without more specific and direct conditions than those being applied by the commissioners. I view the measure as a defence for the public rather than an easy way out for certain people.
          My second point relates to amendment No. 18 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It proposes that the lawyers appointed to the commission should not be from any jurisdiction other than that of the United Kingdom. I would regret that, as it suggests that we cannot learn from other common law jurisdictions such as those in Canada, America, New Zealand, India, South Africa and others with experience in such matters. The amendment implies a deliberate intention to prevent the appointment of anyone who might have had experience in South Africa in respect of the problems associated with peace and reconciliation and the amnesty committee. By cutting ourselves off from the experience of other jurisdictions as a deliberate decision to be insular about the issue, we would show that we did not appreciate how much we could learn from others. Our experience within these islands is not particularly special. Others have had to face similar difficulties and perhaps we can learn from them.
          Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall speak to amendment No. 18, which was tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. It relates to clause 1 and seeks to leave out "any jurisdiction" and replace it with "the United Kingdom".
          On Second Reading, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked why we should allow a lawyer from any jurisdiction to be appointed. The Secretary of State's response was somewhat evasive. She said:
          "I do not want to tie myself down".
          She then attempted to clarify what she meant by that, but muddied the waters still further when she said:
          "It is 99 per cent. likely that a lawyer with expertise in our criminal legal system would be of UK origin".—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol.313, c. 1088.]
          However, that is not what she was asked. It is obvious that, in most instances, one of our own people would have the relevant expertise, but that was not the question. The Secretary of State did not address the valid point posed at the time as to which jurisdiction would be involved. She did not say that an intimate knowledge or expertise of UK law would be a prerequisite to serving on the commission. From her remarks on Second Reading, one would have thought that she was saying that the required expertise had to be within the realm of UK law, but she did not say that, and it is not a prerequisite in the Bill.
          Clause 1(2)(a) simply requires that at any time
          "at least one of the Commissioners is a lawyer".
          Subsection (5) defines a lawyer as
          "a person who holds a legal qualification in any jurisdiction."
          The Secretary of State did not promise that in 99 per cent. of cases the appointed lawyer would be from the United Kingdom. That issue is vital, and we query why the Bill is drafted in that way.
          We need only the very best legal interpretation of UK law—not European law or the laws of Congress or the Dail—on imprisonment and sentencing. I take issue with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who asked why we cannot learn lessons from other common law jurisdictions. We may well learn from them, but it seems to me—if I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will put me right—that the main reason for having a lawyer on the commission is that he or she can interpret clearly for its other members the meaning of United Kingdom law on those important issues. It is not a question of learning from other jurisdictions. We want someone who can give the best interpretation and analysis of our law.
          Mr. David Winnick: Lawyers practise in other countries. Is there not a danger of our being a little too parochial? George Mitchell, a very respected former United States senator, carried out an important role as chairman of the talks, and was highly praised by all concerned, including the Opposition. Should we not work on the assumption that the lawyer, in the unlikely event that he or she were not a UK citizen, would be fully conversant with UK law?
          Mr. Moss: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the wording of subsection (5). The Bill redefines a lawyer to mean a person who holds a legal qualification in the United Kingdom. That person could be of foreign origin as long as he or she had a legal qualification in this country. That is the most important point on that subsection.

          25
          Why do the Government not feel able to trust a member of our legal profession to serve honourably and with distinction on the commission? Who could possibly have an objection to that lawyer having a UK qualification? Is that another concession? Has pressure been brought to bear concerning whether our lawyers can be trusted? The Minister should tell us why the Bill has been drafted in this way, and we look forward to his answer.
          The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The amendments relate to various aspects of the appointment of commissioners. We have sought to ensure that the members and chairman of the sentence review body have the appropriate range of skills and expertise to conduct their business thoroughly and effectively. I am sure that all Members of the House, even those who object to the Bill, want that to be its overriding principle.
          It is also the Secretary of State's intention to ensure that the commissioners command widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. That, too, is an important principle to establish. All too often, when the Government decide the membership of certain bodies—no matter how eminent or experienced the people involved are—they find themselves the subject of criticism.
          4 pm
          Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the fact that a commissioner is required to have a qualification in the legal system within which the tribunal will sit might not find acceptance in the minds of reasonable people? On the other hand, is he suggesting that such a qualification would make impartiality an impossibility in the eyes of a person who might make an application to the commission?
          Mr. Ingram: Perhaps I should not have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman—my next point covers his. I was speaking generally about the structure of the new body, not about the amendments.
          Amendment No. 18 would require that one of the commissioners should have a legal qualification from the United Kingdom. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, there is every sign that that would be likely in any event. Having heard the arguments advanced today, and having decided what we consider right, I can tell the Committee that I am prepared to accept the amendment; but I stress that the person so appointed would not be an adviser to the body but would act as one member of that body who has legal expertise and knowledge of the jurisdiction on which he or she would be asked to comment.
          Only in his very last sentence did the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) acknowledge that the Bill refers not just to psychiatrists but to psychologists. He launched what I can only describe as an argument based on narrow prejudice against psychiatrists—I do not know what he bases that on. He seems to believe that psychiatrists should never be involved in judging criminals or prisoners: politicians, he thinks, invariably get it right, while psychiatrists always get it wrong. That is a rather unsound argument, based, as I say, on the right hon. Gentleman's narrow prejudices.
          By stipulating that at least one commissioner should be a psychiatrist or a psychologist, we are showing that risk assessment is an important aspect of what the Bill is
          26
          designed to achieve. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border seems concerned that the view of a professional psychiatrist, used to undertaking risk assessments, will always prevail over the views of other members of the commission. Are we saying that the legally qualified person serving on the sentence review body would be unable to dissect and understand the psychiatrist's arguments? I am sure that lawyers do so all the time, when they handle difficult cases, and sometimes they are obliged to cross-examine such people. It is important, however, that one of the commissioners is expert on dealing with risk assessment in criminal cases, so we have inserted that prerequisite in the Bill.
          On that basis, I ask hon. Members not to support amendment No. 26, but I would prefer the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border to withdraw it. I note, in passing, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made telling points in defence of psychiatrists and psychologists and the usefulness of their expertise.
          Amendment No. 45 would require one of the lawyers appointed to the sentence review body to be its chairman. Although we would not wish to preclude the appointment of a chairman with a legal qualification, which is a distinct possibility, I do not believe that we should require that. I understand part of the argument that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) advances. We are trying to give the commission a coherent structure. When it is formed, we shall make appointments to it on the basis of individuals' expertise and knowledge. In doing so, I would not want my hands to be tied by a requirement that the chairman be a lawyer, because the person so appointed would be not an adviser to the body but a member of it, and their opinions would have equal weight—although I suspect that, in terms of legal interpretation, the lawyer's opinions would have greater weight because of that person's expertise. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the argument and withdraw the amendment.
          Mr. Andrew MacKay: The official Opposition are extremely grateful to the Minister for accepting amendment No. 18. I broadly share his view that, although it might be helpful for the lawyer to chair the commission, it would be too restrictive to stipulate that the chairman be a lawyer. On behalf of the official Opposition, I accept that it is best to allow flexibility and leave the matter open.
          Mr. William Ross: I listened to the debate with care, because this group of amendments, although the first, is important. Although I would not share all the views of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I believe that, if we asked the general public what they thought about what are broadly termed headshrinkers, a sight more of them would lean toward the right hon. Gentleman's views than would agree with either of the Front-Bench Members who have spoken.
          So many horrific crimes have been committed by individuals who should not have been, but had been, released from prison. That theme needs to be handled with very great care. It appears that the psychiatrists and psychologists are concerned with the prisoner as a patient, and probably tend to look on him or her as a patient.
          When documentation arrives on Ministers' desks, they must consider it in the context of the public good and the danger to members of the public; in those circumstances,

          27
          they are right to be exceedingly cautious. As a result of being cautious, the Minister sometimes gets it wrong, but the matter should not be treated lightly.
          For that reason, I believed that it would be well if such an area of expertise were available to the commission in every case. The commission will deal with many people who have committed horrendous acts. Some may have done so under the influence of drink, drugs and so on, but others are obviously mentally unstable, and we need to be very cautious about whether some of them ever get out of prison. In Northern Ireland, crimes have been committed by people who, if they had not been allied to terrorism, would probably have been given a somewhat different sentence. They might have been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure or possibly even declared unfit to plead. Because of the terrorist situation, though, I do not know whether anyone charged with a terrorist crime has ever been found unfit to plead. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether there has been such a case. I wonder what the attitude of the courts and the prosecuting authorities would have been towards folk charged with committing a crime that was not related to terrorism.
          I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the chairman needing appropriate skills, expertise and knowledge. He spelled that out in more detail when he went on to say that each member of the commission would give advice based on his skills, knowledge and training.
          My argument that the chairman should have a legal qualification fits perfectly into that. To some extent, the chairman can be seen as a judge in a court, who must provide a summing up, give legal guidance, tease out what has been said and consider all the evidence that has been presented. He must do that in conjunction with the panel of commissioners, all in very difficult circumstances.
          That is why I believe that a person with legal training—perhaps a fairly senior member of the legal profession, such as a solicitor or barrister of long standing, a judge or a magistrate—who deals with such matters daily could give such guidance and pull together all the evidence that has been presented. He must be able to express an opinion, listen to the opinions expressed by others and guide the panel to a sensible conclusion.
          I did not table the amendment lightly. In many ways, the panel is a judicial body, even if we are not calling it that, and the chairman is sitting in the role of a judge. I believe that the Government are deliberately leaving open the possibility of appointing people from outside the United Kingdom, and almost certainly appointing individuals who have a legal qualification in the Irish Republic. That, I am certain, is the purpose of the Bill, and I object to it. There may be many people outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom who have a knowledge of UK law, but for every one in that position, there are 100 or 1,000 in the United Kingdom who have a clear understanding and who are perfectly capable of guiding the commission.
          My amendment does not call for the chairman to be from any particular United Kingdom jurisdiction: there are three legal jurisdictions, and I would not care from which one he came. I believe, however, that the chairman
          28
          should have a measure of loyalty and commitment to the laws of the United Kingdom, rather than to finding a method of letting the gunmen out.
          Mr. Maclean: I listened to the Minister, and I am sorry that he chose to be a little churlish in some of his remarks to me. If we are to make progress this afternoon, it ill becomes the Minister to be as disrespectful as he was; nor should he try to put words into my mouth.
          The Hansard record will show that at no time did I suggest that Ministers always got it right and everyone else got it wrong—far from it. However, I repeat that on the occasions when Ministers had to release people, they had a success rate twice as good as that of the professionals who were heavily advised and relied completely on psychiatric advice. Both groups got it wrong, but Ministers in this Government will no doubt also have a better success rate when making the same sorts of judgment. That was my point, and the Minister did the Committee a disservice by trying to put words into my mouth and to attribute to me remarks that I did not make.
          My comments did not convey any narrow prejudices. I had no dealings with the psychiatric profession before I became a Minister. The difference between the Minister and me is that he brings his brief to the Chamber and I bring my experience from having done the job for a while. Home Office Ministers have an awful responsibility when faced with a file and the prospect of releasing someone who may offend or kill again. Ministers also have a responsibility to recall reoffenders to prison.
          We have had some experience of this sort of situation, and I have moved my amendment regarding psychiatrists purely on the basis of my experience. I do not do so because of any narrow prejudice, as the Minister has suggested. When he has been in his job a little longer, the Minister will perhaps have the right to accuse other hon. Members of that—but I do not think that he has earned that right yet.
          Clearly, I will not be able to make progress with my amendment today. I have no intention of dividing the Committee and wasting time when we must consider other very important amendments before the guillotine falls. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
          The Chairman: I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not in order for him to do that. The lead amendment belongs to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross).
          Mr. William Ross: I did not withdraw my amendment because I thought that other hon. Members might wish to speak to it and that the Minister might like to respond. If he is not prepared to do so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
          Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
          Amendment made: No. 18, page 1, line 18, leave out 'any jurisdiction' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. MacKay.]
          Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
          Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

        Clause 3

          APPLICATIONS
          4.15 pm
          Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 50, page 1, line 24, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
          The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 51, page 1, line 24, after 'application', insert 'only'.
          No. 52, page 1, line 24, leave out '(and only if)'.
          No. 7, page 1, line 25, leave out from 'for' to 'life' in page 2, line 1.
          No. 55, page 1, line 25, leave out 'for a fixed term'.
          No. 33, page 1, line 25, after 'term', insert 'or for life'.
          No. 53, page 1, line 25, after 'term', insert 'imposed by a court'.
          No. 34, page 1, line 26, leave out
          'the first three of the following four'
          and insert
          'all of the following five'.
          No. 54, page 1, line 26, leave out 'the first three of'.
          No. 29, page 1, line 26, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.
          No. 30, page 1, line 26, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.
          No. 35, page 1, line 27, leave out from 'satisfied' to end of line 2 on page 2.
          No. 31, page 2, line 2, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.
          No. 57, page 2, line 6, after first 'a', insert 'member of or a'.
          No. 58, page 2, line 7, leave out 'terrorist' and insert 'proscribed'.
          No. 59, page 2, line 8, leave out 'immediately'.
          No. 60, page 2, line 10, after 'of, insert
          'or remain a member or'.
          No. 61, page 2, line 10, leave out 'terrorist' and insert 'proscribed'.
          No. 62, page 2, line 11, after 'concerned', insert 'with or involved'.
          No. 63, page 2, line 12, leave out
          'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'
          and insert
          'within or connected with the affairs of the United Kingdom'.
          No. 8, page 2, line 12, leave out
          'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'.
          No. 25, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
          '(6A) In determining whether a prisoner would be a danger to the public the Commission—

          (a) must have regard to any opinion submitted by the Chief Officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and

          (b) must not rely only on psychiatric or psychological opinions arrived at after interviews with the prisoner.'.

          No. 28, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
          '6(A) The fifth condition is that the terrorist organisation to which the prisoner belonged (or any successor or sister organisation of a different name) has substantially decommissioned weapons.
          6(B) The sixth condition is that the prisoner has completely renounced the use of violence for good.'.
          30
          No. 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
          '(6A) The fifth condition is that the prisoner has renounced violence and is willing to comply with any order made by the Secretary of State requiring him to fulfil community service of such a nature and for such a duration as the order may specify.'.
          No. 64, page 2, line 16, leave out '10th April 1998' and insert '31st August 1994'.
          No. 20, page 2, line 16, at end insert
          'and in respect of which the applicant was charged before 10th April 1998,'.
          No. 79, page 2, line 19, after '1996', insert
          'or was committed by a member of Her Majesty's armed forces in the course of his duties while serving in Northern Ireland'.
          No. 80, page 2, line 19, leave out from '1996' to end of line 22.
          No. 10, in clause 5, page 3, line 40, leave out 'and third' and insert 'third and fourth'.
          No. 72, in clause 9, page 4, line 33, after 'not', insert
          'remain a member of or'.
          No. 73, page 4, line 33, after 'terrorist', insert 'or proscribed'.
          New clause 1—Warrant of Chief Constable—
          'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3, no prisoner shall be released if the Secretary of State receives a warrant from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary certifying that in his opinion the prisoner is still an active supporter of a terrorist organisation, whether or not it is specified under section 3(8).'.
          New clause 2—Renunciation of violence—
          '.—Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3 no prisoner shall be released unless he has sworn on oath to renounce violence for good nor support any organisation which advocates or uses violence.'.
          Mr. Ross: I hope that I am not expected to speak to all the amendments and new clauses, as only about half belong to me. However, I have read them all with interest, and, by and large, they address the same general problem regarding conditions of release. I shall run swiftly through those standing in my name, so that the Committee may understand my intentions.
          Amendment No. 50 proposes to omit the word "shall" and insert the word "may" in the appropriate place. That would create a measure of discretion, which is currently absent from the Bill. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 correct the Bill's drafting, which I suspect is not quite right. I invite the Minister to accept my changes, but, if he is happier with what he has put down, I will have no great problem with that.
          The Bill refers only to fixed terms, but amendment No. 55 and several other amendments propose that the same standards should apply to all those who are seeking release, whether they have fixed terms, life sentences or an indeterminate sentence. I see no good reason why individuals who come before the commission should not be on an equal footing, and have to fulfil the same conditions before they are released.
          Amendment No. 53 proposes to restrict "prisoners" to those subject to sentences passed within Northern Ireland. If someone has committed a crime outwith Northern Ireland, and if sentence is passed on them elsewhere in the UK, he or she is in another jurisdiction. Therefore, an individual convicted in the Republic of Ireland, for example—or perhaps even in Germany or another foreign state—should be outwith the scope of the Bill.

          31
          I wish to refer to amendments Nos. 54 and 35. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) tabled similar amendments, not knowing what I was doing. The amendments follow amendment No. 53, and propose that all the conditions must be met in each case.
          Amendment No. 57 simply tries to widen the scope from a supporter of a violent terrorist organisation to include membership of that organisation. In Committee, the Secretary of State ran into difficulty on the question of what was "terrorist" and what was "proscribed". My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) asked about the position of someone who belonged to a proscribed organisation but was not treated as a terrorist. That seemed to us to set up a strange situation, which we could not understand.
          Amendment. No. 58 would change the Bill to include membership of a proscribed organisation. Those organisations are all listed, and can be added to by the Secretary of State. The Government could get into an awful mess if they do not treat all the bodies on the same footing, and apply the same description to all of them and their members.
          Amendment No. 59 proposes to leave out the word "immediately". I do not see why the measure should be introduced only immediately. The commission must look beyond the immediate effect of someone getting out, and consider what that individual will do next week, or in three months' time. The Bill should take a longer view.
          I hope that the Minister has noted that amendment No. 60 should read
          "or remain a member of',
          as the amendment paper, as printed, has the final word as "or". There is evidently a typographical error. The amendment would widen the scope of the Bill to provide that someone who got out of prison was not only associated with or a supporter of a proscribed organisation, but remained a member of that terrorist proscribed organisation. I simply cannot understand why the word "proscribed" has not been used throughout the Bill, and I hope that we will get a clear explanation.
          Amendment No. 63 again tries to widen the scope. The Bill as drafted talks about terrorism
          "connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
          The terrorist campaign has been concerned with the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. To say, therefore, that the Bill is concerned only with the affairs of Northern Ireland seems restrictive. In those circumstances, we should widen the measure to include acts connected
          "with the affairs of the United Kingdom"
          and take the nation as a whole. That would extend the scope to include terrorist actions carried out against the British Army in Germany or British possessions overseas which would be concerned with the UK—but, in particular, with Northern Ireland with regard to the Bill. The Government must consider the Bill and the amendments carefully, because many of the amendments are extremely helpful to what they are trying to achieve and should be accepted. The other amendments in the group simply hark back to the area issue, to which I have referred.
          32
          The Government have been far too hidebound in their approach. They should have given the matter wider consideration and encompassed all terrorist organisations. The commissioners should have a measure of discretion, and we should restrict the provision to that which lies within the jurisdiction of our own courts, rather than pull in sentences passed by other courts, because commissioners could not be aware of all the evidence produced in such courts.
          Those are my reasons for tabling the amendments. I hope that others who have tabled other amendments will clearly explain the reasoning behind them.
          Mr. Moss: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10.
          Amendment No. 7 would mean that clause 3(2)(a) would state:
          "the prisoner is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland and the following four conditions are satisfied".
          We should carefully consider the Government's distinction between fixed-term prisoners and those serving a life sentence. The Bill makes a clear distinction, with three of the four conditions in clause 3 applying to those on fixed terms and all four applying to those on life sentences.
          The last condition, at clause 3(6), is the most crucial:
          "The fourth condition is that, if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public."
          Why have the Government assumed that only life prisoners could be a danger to the public? Lifers could be less likely to be a danger or to cause problems once they were released, because the prospects of reincarceration would be far more serious than for those on fixed terms.
          Some fixed-term prisoners may be far more committed to terrorism and to the cause than their colleagues on longer sentences, including life sentences. On conviction, it may not have been possible to make more serious charges stick to such prisoners, perhaps through lack of evidence, but it may have been deemed to be in the interests of society in Northern Ireland to take them out of circulation, and the prosecution may have gone for a lesser charge to secure conviction.
          We strongly question why the Government have made a distinction between fixed-term and life prisoners, especially in respect of the fourth condition. We are not persuaded that all fixed-term prisoners are not likely to be a danger to the public if they are released early, and I should be interested to hear the arguments to the contrary. The amendment makes it clear that any prisoner serving a sentence in Northern Ireland must meet all four conditions set out later in the clause.
          Amendment No. 8 would leave out the words
          "connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
          The question is simple: should we think of releasing prisoners who the commission believes could
          "become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism"?
          The Bill goes on to use the words
          "connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
          If we end the clause with the word "terrorism", it makes much more sense, because it is just as important that someone released from prison under the Bill should not join a terrorist group that operates either in mainland

          33
          Britain or elsewhere in the world. Our friends in other countries would be distinctly unimpressed if we were to release prisoners who happened then to join other terrorist organisations around the world.
          4.30 pm
          Perhaps the Government intended the words
          "connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland"
          to embrace mainland Britain, but it seems unnecessary to be that pedantic. If the subsection ended with the word "terrorism", it would include prisoners likely to join terrorist organisations elsewhere in the world.
          Amendment No. 10 is a consequential amendment.
          Mr. McNamara: If we took out those words, would it not allow someone imprisoned in Northern Ireland and involved in middle east terrorism to apply for the benefit of the legislation?
          Mr. Moss: No, that does not apply, because, in subsection (3), the first condition is that the sentence must have been passed in Northern Ireland for a qualifying offence. An offence of terrorism in the middle east would not qualify under that subsection.
          Mr. McNamara: A scheduled offence is a qualifying offence—that is all.
          The Chairman: Order. I had not appreciated that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) had sat down. I call Mr. Peter Robinson.
          Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish to speak in support of four amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and me, and supported by other hon. Members. They fall into two categories. However, before I deal with them, I seek clarification on a point of procedure.
          It would be helpful, Sir Alan, if you could say what mechanism there is for Members from Northern Ireland to divide on amendments that are not lead amendments. It is not unreasonable for Northern Ireland Members to expect to have some Divisions on amendments which they feel are important. However, the draconian guillotine procedure that the Minister has stampeded upon us, with an outrageously short time to deal with a significant Bill, means that, within an hour, we must dispose of dozens of amendments. Moreover, if we discuss the amendments, we shall take up our voting time.
          Hon. Members from Northern Ireland find that most unsatisfactory. We must protest about the way in which the Government are handling this legislation. We should not be surprised about the Government's approach, because they have entered into an agreement, and it does not really matter what hon. Members think about the basis of the Bill. The Government will push it through, because that is the agreement that they have signed.
          The amendments that we have tabled fall into two classes. Amendment No. 33, in common with a number of other amendments, would require prisoners to be dealt with in precisely the same way whether they are serving a life sentence or a fixed-term sentence.
          Why should someone in prison for a fixed term be entitled to go before the commission without satisfying the fourth condition, which is that, if he were to be
          34
          released, he would not be a danger to the public? We should all be satisfied that a prisoner, whether serving a fixed term or a life sentence, is not a danger to the public. Perhaps the Minister will explain the tortuous reasoning that would allow a fixed-term prisoner to be released even though he may be a danger to the public.
          Prisoners must meet the four criteria in the Bill. The other amendments that we have tabled seek to add a fifth condition. The necessity for that fifth condition arises from the fact that the four conditions in the Bill relate not so much to the individual behaviour or state of mind of the prisoner who is to be released as to the fact that he is a prisoner—which is fairly evident if he is to be released—and that he is part of an organisation. Under the Bill, if that organisation is not on the list of terrorist organisations specified by the Secretary of State, the prisoner is capable of being released, provided he satisfies the requirement that, as part of that organisation, he will not resume or assist in the preparation of acts of terrorism. Amendment No. 36 would require that prisoner to satisfy the commission that he or she has renounced violence.
          Furthermore, having satisfied the commission that they have renounced violence, prisoners should show some regret for their crimes by putting themselves at the disposal of the Secretary of State for some form of community service. Prisoners should not be able to walk out of prison as unreconstructed terrorists without having regretted any of the offences for which they were in prison. They should not expect to go on to the streets and to go back to whatever it was they were doing. The amendment would require prisoners to change, and to show that they are willing to be assimilated into society and to repay their debt to society.
          Mr. William Ross: In tabling amendment No. 36, the hon. Gentleman no doubt recalls that, during the 1956–61 IRA terrorist campaign, individuals were interned for the duration, but it was possible for those who were prepared to give an undertaking that they would no longer be involved in violence to be released. Now, at the end of a very long period of terrorist violence, the hon. Gentleman is asking for exactly the same thing to happen. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable.
          Mr. Robinson: It is worth saying that the criteria in the Bill fall into two categories. Some deal with issues relating to the prisoner, whereas the provision that we are about to come to relates to the definition of a terrorist organisation.
          I do not think that any prisoner should be allowed simply to walk out of gaol because his organisation claims to have a certain status. According to the Bill, it is the behaviour of the individual, not that of his organisation, which will determine whether he returns to prison. It is therefore vital for the commission to be given a clear undertaking that the individual is willing to comply with any order issued by the Secretary of State in connection with community service, has expressed regret for his crimes, and has renounced violence for good.
          Mr. Robert McCartney: I want to speak specifically about amendment No. 7.
          The Bill provides for a distinction between prisoners serving fixed-term sentences and those serving life sentences. That distinction is arbitrary, irrational and

          35
          illogical. Not infrequently, those serving life sentences—although technically guilty of murder, for which the law prescribes only life imprisonment—are what are known in the business as "gofers". They have been involved in conspiracies, keeping a watch, picking up vital information to identify targets, and driving cars containing the weapons handed over to those who carried out the actual murders. Technically, all those people are guilty of murder, but some—this may be, indirectly, an argument in favour of prisoner release—were very much on the periphery of hard-core terrorist violence.
          On the other hand, many people serving fixed-term sentences were hard-core terrorists, involved in a series of terrorist crimes that do not, however, require the imposition of a life sentence. One of the most notorious loyalist terrorists, Adair, was convicted of a host of terrorist offences, but, as I recollect, was not sentenced to a life term—although the judge who sentenced him considered him to be one of the most serious terrorist criminals to have come before the courts.
          Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the point that he orchestrated, devised and encouraged acts of terrorism, rather than being personally involved in their commission?
          Mr. McCartney: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. Adair was certainly involved in such activity, although I believe that he was also involved in much of the other kind.
          Attempted murder is another issue. Let us suppose that someone is caught planting a large bomb, with the intention of causing the death and mutilation of a number of people—a bomb like the Enniskillen bomb, for instance. That person is charged either with attempted murder, which does not carry a mandatory life sentence, or with being in possession of explosives with the intention of causing serious physical harm, which also does not carry a life sentence.
          Such a person may have been involved in a series of offences. He may have a long record of terrorist involvement. Yet, because he has been given a fixed-term rather than a life sentence, he is absolved from the fourth condition. We are dealing with people whose psychiatric or psychological background should cause them to be deemed hard-core terrorists, who are likely to be recidivists of some kind, but who will be absolved from the condition that,
          "if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public."
          Because such people are fixed-term prisoners, the criterion whether they are likely to be a danger to the public if released is thrown out of the window.
          The Committee should not approve such an arbitrary and illogical distinction. It does not protect the public at all, although, if I understand the conditions correctly—particularly the fourth condition—the object is to protect the public from dangerous criminals who are likely to remain dangerous criminals, and, in such a capacity, to cause harm and danger in future. I support amendment No. 7, which makes all four conditions applicable not just to those sentenced to life imprisonment, but to those sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment.
          4.45 pm
          Mr. Maclean: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 25 and 28 and new clauses 1 and 2, which I tabled.
          Amendment No. 25 states:
          "In determining whether a prisoner would be a danger to the public the Commission… must have regard to any opinion submitted by the Chief Officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and … must not rely only on psychiatric or psychological opinions arrived at after interviews with the prisoner."
          I am worried about the fact that the Bill does not seem to provide for the chief officer's opinions to count in any regard.
          Clause 3(6) merely states:
          "The fourth condition is that, if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public."
          What evidence must the commissioners have before reaching such a conclusion? As my amendment suggests, I fear that they may rely too heavily on the result of psychological or psychometric testing or risk assessment conducted by psychologists or psychiatrists. Let us suppose, however, that they adopt other means of determining whether the prisoner is likely to be a danger to the public. Are they entitled to hear submissions from the Northern Ireland Office? Can the Minister tell the commission that he has information suggesting that the individual may still be a danger to the public, irrespective of the conclusions that the psychiatrists may reach?
          What if the RUC has information relating to the prisoner, which convinces the chief officer that he is likely to be a danger to the public? Can he submit that information to the commission, and is the commission entitled to take it into account?
          The Bill does not give enough flesh to the rather bland condition that,
          "if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public."
          The legislation should provide for the views of those with experience, or a reliable opinion on whether the prisoner would be a danger to the public, to be taken into account. That should be their entitlement.
          Mr. Robert McCartney: No doubt, given his ministerial experience, the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the following circumstances. A number of individuals are jointly charged. Some—generally those on the periphery of the offence—make statements of admission that may even involve the trigger man, the man who shot the victim. Because that man is a confident, hard-core terrorist, however, he does not say a word, and is subsequently discharged. That information is within the knowledge of the senior police officer, and—being information about the nature of the individual to be released—ought properly to be supplied.
          Mr. Maclean: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. His intervention raises an additional question, which I hope to be able to raise on Wednesday: the question of the reasons that may be given to the prisoner. In many instances, the safety of RUC officers and other members of the security forces could be gravely endangered if they supplied information suggesting that a prisoner was a danger to the public, knowing full well that, if the commissioners decided not to release that prisoner, they would have to give reasons for his not being released.

          37
          The Bill is silent on the protection that will be afforded to sensitive security information. That may be cast-iron, vital information that reasonable commissioners would conclude should not result in someone's release. However, the RUC might be afraid to give it, because their security operations would be compromised.
          Amendment No. 28 is a key one. I am approaching decommissioning from a slightly different route, and that will be further discussed in the next debate. It is crucial for the Bill to state that no prisoner shall be released until the terrorist organisation to which he belonged or any successor organisation, whatever it chooses to call itself, has substantially decommissioned its weapons. I suspect that some Northern Ireland terrorist organisations will evolve or go through name changes as their lawyers find ways to pick holes in the legislation.
          I am merely trying to put into legislation the Prime Minister's commitment to the House on 6 May, and no doubt his oral commitment to Northern Ireland Members on other occasions. It would be extraordinary—people would find it obscene—for the Government to go ahead with the Bill without an amendment to link the decommissioning, or the substantial decommissioning, of weapons with terrorist releases.
          My amendment does not even state that all weapons must be surrendered before any terrorist is released. It merely uses the Prime Minister's term, "substantially decommissioned weapons." I fail to see how any reasonable person could find that amendment unreasonable. I hope that the Minister will accept it as a condition in clause 3, or that he will accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
          My new clause 2 again approaches the problem from a slightly different route. Nowhere does the Bill state that a prisoner must swear an oath that he has renounced violence for good. The Minister may say, "So what? If he intends to return to violence, he will swear to anything. He may say that he will be a good boy." As the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) suggested, he may agree to do community service. The Minister may say that an oath will not stop people from returning to violence. I know that it will not stop a person who is dedicated to returning to violence, but it is another hurdle that a prisoner has to overcome if he is to convince the commissioners that he has given up violence for good. It is a sign of good faith by a prisoner that he has renounced violence for good.
          I shall not push the Government to the death on the new clause, but it makes a valid point, and the Government should explain why they do not think that it is necessary for a prisoner to renounce violence for good and take an oath to that effect.
          I stress the importance of amendment No. 28, which would ensure that a prisoner would not be released until the terrorist organisation to which he belonged had started the process that the Prime Minister promised the House—that that organisation has substantially decommissioned its weapons. The condition should not be that the organisation has entered talks that may one day lead to the setting up of a committee of yet more foreign experts, which might lead to decommissioning. It should not be said that prisoners should be released because that great process has started.
          38
          The Prime Minister told the House that of course terrorist organisations should substantially decommission their weapons before prisoners are released. I am simply trying to take the Prime Minister at his word, and build it into the Bill.
          Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Amendment No. 20 is in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Clause 3(7)(a) lays down a requirement that a qualifying offence is one which
          "was committed before 10th April 1998".
          We seek to add the words
          "and in respect of which the applicant was charged before 10th April 1998."
          It is important to draw a line somewhere in the process. The Bill as drafted applies to those who are still at large, and who may in due course be charged with a crime that was committed before 10 April. That opens the prospect of many more convicted terrorists qualifying under the Bill than are currently in prison.
          No one has yet been charged with many of the terrorist crimes committed in Northern Ireland, including some of the most serious crimes over the past 30 years of terrorist violence. For example, no one has been charged with offences in connection with the bomb in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday 1987, which killed many innocent people. Under the terms of the Bill, if at any future time a terrorist is charged with an offence in connection with that bombing, he or she will qualify under the terms of the Bill for accelerated release.
          Clause 10(6) states:
          "In the case of any other sentence passed after the day on which this Act comes into force, the accelerated release day is the second anniversary of the start of the sentence (disregarding custody before the sentence was passed)."
          That means that the people who exploded the Enniskillen bomb, who murdered 11 innocent people, will serve no more than two years. That is totally unacceptable in a democratic society. I hope that the security forces will continue to pursue the people who exploded that bomb, and that they will be charged, and, if guilty, found guilty. Our amendment would ensure that they would not qualify for accelerated release, because it would be a mockery and a travesty of justice if the people who committed that atrocity served only two years.
          I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the amendment, and will agree that we need to draw a line somewhere. If we do not, where does all this end? No one has been charged with about 70 per cent. of terrorist offences in County Fermanagh. We are debating potentially hundreds of terrorists who have yet to be charged with crimes and who could qualify under the Bill. We are debating not just prisoners but many other terrorists who have never been apprehended for their crimes. Our amendment would mean that terrorists who are charged after 10 April and convicted of serious terrorist offences that were committed before that date will not qualify.
          I use that crime only as an example. There are countless other murders in Northern Ireland for which no one has been charged. It would equally be a travesty of justice for each and every one of those murders if the people who committed them were subsequently charged with and convicted of murder, perhaps multiple murder,

          39
          and released after only two years. That would say to the people of Northern Ireland including the victims of the Enniskillen bomb that those lives were worth just two years in prison. What does that say about justice? I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
          5 pm
          Mr. McNamara: I listened with interest and much sympathy to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), but the Committee is getting into a major difficulty in seeking to rewrite an agreement that has already been signed. I understand the desire of those who are not party to the agreement to alter and wreck it; that is perfectly proper. But it is a bit off for those who have signed up to it—who jumped on the tails of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and said, "Me, too. Can I go to Northern Ireland to take part in this great campaign to get the agreement carried?"—to seek to rewrite it. I put that in a way that might be accepted as parliamentary; it will do for the time being.
          I want to deal with some of the points raised by the amendments. It is wrong—as, for example, is suggested in new clause 1—to give the police the final say on whether a person should be released. That is internment under a new name.
          To ask people being released to take an oath would ensure that the prisons remained full. That may be the object of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). There is no evidence that taking an oath would end the violence, but there is much evidence that people would refuse to sign such an undertaking. Even though he was not involved in violence of any sort, after he had been interned, a former Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Frank Maguire, refused to sign an undertaking that he had not been involved in violence or that he would give it up. He refused to be coerced to be released from an unjust internment in that way.
          To link decommissioning to the release of prisoners or to put conditions on prisoners is unacceptable to wide sections of opinion in Northern Ireland. If carried, that proposal could wreck the agreement. People will say that the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force are engaged in a tactical ceasefire, waiting to see what happens before going on. I do not believe that. The paramilitary organisations did not unilaterally cease violence in a vacuum: they did so in the expectation, held out to them by politicians and contained in the Belfast agreement, of a peace agreement that would remove the causes of violence. Amending the agreement once it has been accepted by putting new pre-conditions on one of its central and essential points, the release of prisoners, will be seen by elements in the paramilitary organisations—even if their leaderships do not regard it as such—as a betrayal of the position that they took up. Decommissioning is a demand that goes beyond the end to violence and many of them regard it as involving symbolic surrender. Organisations may refuse to decommission without restarting violence. If the consequence of that is to halt the release of prisoners,
          40
          some people in both loyalist and republican communities, irrespective of whether they are represented by the current leaderships, are likely to restart the violence.
          Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
          Mr. McNamara: Let me finish. I think I know the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise, because we crossed swords last time we spoke.
          In my judgment, such people would have significant support for restarting violence. They would not have my support, but they would have support. New conditions would cause people to stop and think, "If this bit of the agreement can be tampered with, what is the next bit that will be tampered with?" I believe that that is what is being sought.
          Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
          Mr. McNamara: I am trying to leave time for leader of the Democratic Unionist party to speak before the Minister replies. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman has not been here since the start of the debate and I will not give way.
          I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the emotion involved. That emotion is felt not only about the Enniskillen killings but about Loughinisland and Greysteel. We can all catalogue many such events, but, unfortunately, what the hon. Gentleman wants is not contained in the agreement. The agreement provides for a specific cut-off date. Whether a person was charged or arrested would depend on the vagaries of third-party action, a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police, rather than on the time when the crime was committed.
          Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
          Mr. McNamara: I normally give way frequently, but I want to let another hon. Member speak on this important amendment.
          Any cut-off date must be associated with the signing of the agreement. This is not a question of amnesty. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley read out the terms of clause 10. We must not allow ourselves to be tempted to rewrite the agreement. If we do, the whole of what we are standing for fails and the agreement crumbles.
          Rev. Ian Paisley: I want a vote on amendment No. 36. I understand that time is tight so I shall not make a long speech. There are issues that the Committee should not run away from and which need to be settled by a vote here. Representatives here from Northern Ireland have the right to express themselves. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, the Prime Minister made certain pledges to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum. We were told that when the legislation came before the House, they would be incorporated in it. They have not been. We should, by way of amendment, have the opportunity at least to express the wishes of our constituents on the matter. That is what I wanted to underscore.
          Mr. Ingram: Many points have been raised and I will try to address all of them. The hon. Member for Belfast,

          41
          East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the time allocated to the debate. Under the rules of House, he had the right to object to that last Thursday evening. I was here at 10 pm.
          Mr. Peter Robinson: The Government did not tell parties through the usual channels of their intention to sneak the guillotine through.
          Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is always one to be spoon-fed on the procedure of the House. He has been in the House for a considerable time. He is a parliamentarian and should understand the rules of the House.
          The amendments concern the criteria to be applied by the commissioners in considering whether a prisoner should receive a declaration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, the Bill gives effect to the commitments stated in the agreement that
          "prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements",
          and to the undertakings given by the Government on how the agreement would be implemented—which were stated in the paper that the Secretary of State placed in the Library on 20 April 1998. The parameters of this debate are therefore very clear.
          The Bill states the three criteria—which I shall enumerate again—that will be applied. First:
          "prisoners in Northern Ireland must have been convicted of a scheduled offence committed before 10 April 1998 and sentenced to five years or more or life imprisonment."
          Secondly:
          "A prisoner must not be a supporter of a terrorist organisation of the kind specified in the Bill, which means organisations that 'have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire'."
          Thirdly:
          "A prisoner may not be declared eligible for early release if the commissioners consider that, if released immediately, he or she would be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or become involved in the initiation, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. That means that no prisoner who the commissioners believe will return to violence may be released under the Bill."
          Fourthly:
          "Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment would not be released if they would be considered a danger to the public."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1087.]
          Those criteria are rigorous and consistent with the terms of the agreement. In different ways, most of the amendments that we have been debating today would disturb the very balance of the agreement. Moreover, the other amendments would not improve the Bill but make it difficult to operate.
          For those reasons, I do not intend to accept any of the amendments. I should like now to give detailed reasons for that rejection.
          Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52 would allow the commissioners not to grant a declaration that a prisoner was eligible for release under the Bill in circumstances in which the conditions stated in the legislation have been satisfied. Clause 3 states the conditions—which are rigorous and comprehensive—that prisoners must meet before they are released.
          42
          Given the terms of the agreement, it would be perverse if the sentence review commissioners had the discretion not to release a person who had fully met those conditions. Moreover, inevitably, such discretion would give rise to various legal disputes on exercise and application of the discretion.
          I therefore ask the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52.
          Amendments Nos. 7, 55, 33, 35, 53 and 10 would required that fixed-term prisoners be subject to the same risk test that applies to life sentence prisoners. The hon. Member for Belfast, East argued in his speech in favour of applying the same test.
          There are very good reasons for drawing a distinction between determinate sentences and life sentences. Life sentence prisoners will have committed murder or another very serious crime. In the case of discretionary life sentence prisoners—who will not have been convicted of murder—the life sentence is likely to have been imposed precisely because the court considered that risk was an issue. It is therefore entirely proper that the commissioners should take account of any risk of danger to the public.
          I do not think that there is any dispute between the hon. Member for Belfast, East and me on applying such a risk test. However, under the law as it applies in Northern Ireland, fixed-term prisoners are released automatically after they have served the required portion of their sentence, and their release is not dependent on a favourable assessment of risk. Therefore, the amendments would introduce a significant new concept into the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland.
          Mr. Grieve rose—
          Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
          Mr. Ingram: No, I shall not give way. In the time available—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, East can shout all he wants, but I shall not give way, as I have to deal with all the points that have been raised.
          I believe that the other criteria that determinate-sentence prisoners would have to satisfy are extremely robust and are appropriate for prisoners who have not been given life sentences by the courts. It has been made clear that a fixed-term prisoner may not be released if the commissioners consider that he is likely to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Currently, there is not such a form of risk assessment—certainly not in the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, which was passed by the previous Government and deals with release of determinate-sentence prisoners.
          For those reasons, I ask the Committee to reject also that group of amendments.
          I should like now to deal with amendments Nos. 57, 58, 60, 61, 72 and 73. The amendments, which were tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), are intended to include additional terms in the Bill relating to membership of an organisation and proscription. The amendments raise two issues: first, whether it is necessary

          43
          to exclude members of proscribed organisations from receiving a declaration that they are ineligible to benefit from the scheme; and, secondly, whether the legislation should refer directly to proscribed organisations.
          5.15 pm
          A supporter of an organisation may be a person who provides some form of practical or active support for the activities of the organisation. The support could involve collecting money in support of an organisation's activity, or meetings with terrorists who were engaged in acts of terrorism. Although the idea of membership may have a common-sense meaning that everyone can appreciate, to be a member of a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence, and it would be difficult to establish under law that a person was a member of such an organisation if he had not been convicted of membership. We have therefore used the term "supporter", as the test in proving support is an easier one to meet. Consequently, the legislation will be more robust.
          The Bill's effect on organisations proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts or Emergency Provisions Acts was dealt with in the House in the debate on Second Reading. The Secretary of State stated clearly:
          "This legislation will not remove the ban on organisations that are proscribed under our anti-terrorist laws. The IRA or UDA, for example, will continue to be proscribed, and membership of such organisations will continue to be a criminal offence."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1087.]
          The amendments would confuse the issue yet again. The Bill will have no effect on proscription of an organisation. Moreover, it is still desirable that the questions whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and whether an organisation should remain proscribed—should remain separate. Proscription and eligibility under the Bill are essentially two distinct issues.
          For those reasons, I ask the Committee to reject those amendments.
          Amendments Nos. 59, 62 and 63 would amend the third condition, which deals with whether a prisoner will become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or engage in terrorism after release. I do not think that any of the amendments are necessary. Therefore, I recommend that they be rejected, as they will not improve the Bill.
          Amendment No. 59 would change the third condition, so that it no longer is conditional on whether the prisoner would be released immediately. The legislation was drafted to ensure that the commissioners will consider the current circumstances of prisoners and current likelihoods, and to avoid any suggestion that the commissioners should speculate on unpredictable future events.
          Clause 8 makes provision for prisoners who are not released immediately but have release dates in the future. The Secretary of State will refer cases back to the commissioners if circumstances change in the period between the setting of the declaration and the date of release. Therefore, clause 3(5) correctly deals with those to be released immediately.
          Amendment No. 62 would extend the current form of words, from "concerned with" to
          "concerned with or involved with".
          44
          Such an addition to the Bill would not be beneficial and is, therefore, unnecessary.
          Amendment No. 63 is one of a number of amendments that remove from the third condition the qualification that acts of terrorism must be in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland and replace it with the qualification that they must be in connection with the affairs of the United Kingdom. The Bill deals with terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland. It is not intended to have wider scope or to deal with international terrorism or terrorism generally. Amendment No. 8— which I ask the Committee not to accept—would have a similar effect.
          Amendment No. 25 was tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and deals with the fourth condition, which is on risk. The commissioners will be required to make a rigorous assessment of the danger to the public. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Bill before asking his questions, he would have seen what rules would be in place to deal with the issue of danger. In making that rigorous assessment, the commissioners will be expected to take account of relevant psychological or psychiatric factors and other relevant information, including that provided by the RUC. The legislation is clear regarding the risk test, so the addition provided by the amendment is not necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman had examined the Bill, he would have been able to assess the rules that will come into force, their parameters and whose advice is likely to be taken into account, even though the rules are not specified in the Bill.
          I deal now with amendments Nos. 28, 36, 34, 54, 29, 30 and 31 and new clauses 1 and 2. All would add further conditions to the legislation. New clause 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would prevent the release of a prisoner if the Chief Constable certified that he was still an active supporter of a terrorist organisation whether or not specified under clause 3(8). The new clause would usurp the jurisdiction of the commissioners appointed under the Bill and give the Chief Constable final jurisdiction over release. That would work against the very principle of establishing the commissioners in the first place and giving them responsibility under the Bill, and it may indeed be contrary to the European convention on human rights, although that would have to be tested elsewhere.
          It is important to understand that the commissioners may take account of advice received from the Chief Constable or others, but the final decision on whether a prisoner should be released must rest with the commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North made a telling intervention on that point.
          Amendment No. 28, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, requires that if a prisoner belongs to a terrorist organisation, the organisation must have substantially decommissioned weapons and the prisoner must have completely renounced violence for good before the commissioners grant a declaration. Whether an organisation is co-operating with the decommissioning commission is not a matter for the commissioners but is properly a matter for the Secretary of State to take into account when considering whether an organisation should be excluded from the scheme. It is not a matter for the commissioners but should rightly rest with the Secretary of State, who is also accountable to Parliament.

          45
          Amendment No. 36, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and supported by the hon. Member for Belfast, East requires that a prisoner renounce violence but also requires that he be prepared to undertake community work. In a similar manner, new clause 2, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would prevent the release of a prisoner unless he gave an oath renouncing violence.
          Clause 9 includes stringent licence conditions. These conditions have effect on prisoners who have been licensed and will be imposed rigorously. Moreover, prisoners who are released will have to satisfy those rigorous conditions. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to require prisoners to give undertakings about their behaviour. Indeed, it would be unfortunate if prisoners were to believe that any undertakings that they might give could take precedence over the already tough licence conditions, as if their saying that they would be on their best behaviour somehow absolved them from meeting all the other criteria. The proposal is therefore unsound.
          A requirement to undertake community service on release would be a significant new departure. If prisoners are to be released under the scheme, the aim should be to ensure that they lead a law-abiding and productive life. They should be encouraged to make a positive contribution to society. It would be a major step to set up a scheme to supervise community service, and it could serve merely to delay the point at which former prisoners were reintegrated into society. However, we are actively considering a strategy to ensure that all prisoners who are released can find a way to be reintegrated into society, in the hope that they do not return to their evil ways.
          Amendments Nos. 34, 54, 29, 30, and 31 are consequential on the amendments with which I have already dealt, so I ask the Committee to reject them, too.
          Amendments Nos. 64 and 20 relate to the requirement that to qualify for the scheme, a prisoner must have committed his offence before 10 April 1998, the date of the Good Friday agreement. Amendment No. 64 would change the date to 31 August 1994, which was the date on which the first IRA ceasefire began. Those involved in the discussions leading up to the conclusion of the agreement were clear that any provisions in relation to prisoners should apply on the basis of a cut-off based on the date of the agreement. That is part of the agreement, and I remind the Committee that the agreement was endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland.
          Amendment No. 20, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and supported by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), would limit the benefits under the legislation to those who were charged before 10 April 1998 with offences before that date. It is an established principle that changes such as those proposed in the Bill should relate to the point at which the offence occurred rather than the point at which an offender was caught or the point at which he was convicted. That principle is enshrined in law—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) querying that. He is a respected and intelligent senior counsel in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that he understands the strength of that point. The important thing is that what we are proposing is wholly compatible with the discussions
          46
          surrounding the agreement, with what was said by the participants to the agreement and with the undertakings given at that time.
          Included in this group are amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is not in his place to move them. We may well debate them later if he can find some way to bring them before us. In case they had been moved and in case anyone was thinking of voting for them, I should be asking for them to be rejected, too.
          Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am disappointed by the Minister's response, certainly to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition. Of course, the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) chipped in yet again to protect one side of the equation.
          I have read the agreement, and it is not unreasonable for people to interpret it in the sense in which it has been interpreted in the amendments that we have tabled. The section of the agreement that deals with prisoners states on page 25:
          "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements. The situation in this regard will be kept under review."
          The next paragraph states that the review process would provide for account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences of which the person was convicted and of the need to protect the community. The agreement does not say anything about a distinction between fixed-term and life-term prisoners; it talks simply about protecting the community.
          There is a certain illogicality in the Minister's response and in the Government's position in that there are fixed-term prisoners who, if let out, will be more of a danger to the community than lifers. The agreement does not make the distinction, and I think that the matter should be revisited in another place.
          Mr. William Ross: Much of what the Minister said was completely unsatisfactory, although it was interesting in that it revealed that undertakings had been given. We would hope to pursue these matters on Report. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
          Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
          Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 36—
          The Chairman: Order. On a technicality, the hon. Gentleman cannot move amendment No. 36 before amendment No. 34, because amendment No. 36 is consequential on amendment No. 34. If he wants a Division to take account of that, I advise him to move amendment No. 34.
          Amendment proposed: No. 34, in clause 3, page 1, line 26, leave out
          the first three of the following four'
          and insert
          'all of the following five'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
          Question put, That the amendment be made:—
          The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 257.

          Division No. 300]

          [5.29 pm

          AYES

          Donaldson, Jeffrey

          Wilkinson, John

          Hunter, Andrew

          McCartney, Robert (N Down)

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Mr. William Ross and

          Thompson, William

          Mr. Peter Robinson.

          NOES

          Ainger, Nick

          Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

          Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

          Ellman, Mrs Louise

          Alexander, Douglas

          Fatchett, Derek

          Allen, Graham

          Fearn, Ronnie

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Field, Rt Hon Frank

          Ashton, Joe

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          Ballard, Jackie

          Fitzsimons, Lorna

          Barron, Kevin

          Flynn, Paul

          Bayley, Hugh

          Follett, Barbara

          Beard, Nigel

          Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

          Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

          Fyfe, Maria

          Beith, Rt Hon A J

          Galloway, George

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Gapes, Mike

          Bennett, Andrew F

          Gardiner, Barry

          Best, Harold

          George, Andrew (St Ives)

          Blears, Ms Hazel

          George, Bruce (Walsall S)

          Boateng, Paul

          Gerrard, Neil

          Borrow, David

          Gibson, Dr Ian

          Bradley, Keith (Withington)

          Godsiff, Roger

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Goggins, Paul

          Brake, Tom

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Brinton, Mrs Helen

          Gordon, Mrs Eileen

          Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

          Gorrie, Donald

          Browne, Desmond

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          Burden, Richard

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Burgon, Colin

          Grocott, Bruce

          Burstow, Paul

          Grogan, John

          Butler, Mrs Christine

          Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

          Byers, Stephen

          Hancock, Mike

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Hanson, David

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          Heal, Mrs Sylvia

          Canavan, Dennis

          Healey, John

          Casale, Roger

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Caton, Martin

          Heppell, John

          Cawsey, Ian

          Hewitt, Ms Patricia

          Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

          Hill, Keith

          Chisholm, Malcolm

          Hoon, Geoffrey

          Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

          Hope, Phil

          Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

          Hopkins, Kelvin

          Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

          Howells, Dr Kim

          Clelland, David

          Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

          Clwyd, Ann

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          Humble, Mrs Joan

          Coleman, Iain

          Hurst, Alan

          Colman, Tony

          Hutton, John

          Cooper, Yvette

          Iddon, Dr Brian

          Corbett, Robin

          Ingram, Adam

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

          Cotter, Brian

          Jenkins, Brian

          Cousins, Jim

          Johnson, Miss Melanie

          Cox, Tom

          (Welwyn Hatfield)

          Crausby, David

          Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

          Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

          Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

          Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Cummings, John

          Jones, Martyn, (Clwyd S)

          Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

          Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

          Darvill, Keith

          Jowell, Ms Tessa

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Denham, John

          Keeble, Ms Sally

          Dismore, Andrew

          Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

          Donohoe, Brian H

          Kemp, Fraser

          Doran, Frank

          Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

          Dowd, Jim

          Khabra, Piara S

          Drew, David

          King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

          48

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

          Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

          Kingham, Ms Tess

          Rendel, David

          Ladyman, Dr Stephen

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          Lawrence, Ms Jackie

          Rooker, Jeff

          Leslie, Christopher

          Rooney, Terry

          Levitt, Tom

          Roy, Frank

          Linton, Martin

          Ruane, Chris

          Livingstone, Ken

          Ruddock, Ms Joan

          Lock, David

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          Love, Andrew

          Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

          McAllion, John

          Salter, Martin

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Sanders, Adrian

          McCafferty, Ms Chris

          Savidge, Malcolm

          McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

          Sawford, Phil

          McDonnell, John

          Sedgemore, Brian

          McFall, John

          Sheerman, Barry

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

          McIsaac, Shona

          Skinner, Dennis

          McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

          Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Smith, Angela (Basildon)

          McNamara, Kevin

          Smith, John (Glamorgan)

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

          McWalter, Tony

          Soley, Clive

          McWilliam, John

          Southworth, Ms Helen

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Squire, Ms Rachel

          Mallaber, Judy

          Starkey, Dr Phyllis

          Mandelson, Peter

          Stewart, David (Inverness E)

          Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Straw, Rt Hon Jack

          Marshall-Andrews, Robert

          Stuart, Ms Gisela

          Martlew, Eric

          Stunell, Andrew

          Maxton, John

          Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

          Meale, Alan

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Merron, Gillian

          Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

          Michael, Alun

          Tipping, Paddy

          Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

          Todd, Mark

          Milburn, Alan

          Tonge, Dr Jenny

          Mitchell, Austin

          Touhig, Don

          Moffatt, Laura

          Truswell, Paul

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Moran, Ms Margaret

          Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

          Morley, Elliot

          Twigg, Derek (Halton)

          Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

          Tyler, Paul

          Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

          Vaz, Keith

          Mudie, George

          Walley, Ms Joan

          Mullin, Chris

          Ward, Ms Claire

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          Wareing, Robert N

          Norris, Dan

          Watts, David

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          White, Brian

          O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

          Whitehead, Dr Alan

          Olner, Bill

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Organ, Mrs Diana

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Osborne, Ms Sandra

          (Swansea W)

          Pearson, Ian

          Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

          Perham, Ms Linda

          Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

          Pickthall, Colin

          Willis, Phil

          Pike, Peter L

          Wills, Michael

          Plaskitt, James

          Winnick, David

          Pollard, Kerry

          Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

          Pond, Chris

          Woolas, Phil

          Pope, Greg

          Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

          Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

          Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

          Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

          Wyatt, Derek

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Radice, Giles

          Mr. David Jamieson and

          Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

          Janet Anderson.

          Question accordingly negatived.
          Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 23 to 40 and insert—
          '(8) A terrorist organisation is an organisation which—

          (a) has been concerned in terrorism, or in promoting it, and

          (b) has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.

          49
          (9) The Secretary of State may specify by order than an organisation is not a terrorist organisation if on application by that organisation he believes that it—

          (a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives;

          (b) is not involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence;

          (c) is not directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;

          (d) is committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, including any of its own, by 22nd May 2000, and

          (e) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 published as Cm 3883.'.

          The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 9, at end insert—
          '(ba) is not involved in raising funds through coercion, extortion or any other illegal means;'. Amendment (b) to the proposed amendment, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—
          '(d) has already decommissioned a significant proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that is has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000;
          (e) has commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure; and
          (f) in the opinion of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary no longer represents a threat to the community.'.
          Amendment No. 37, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'may specify only' and insert 'shall specify'.
          Amendment No. 38, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'he believes'.
          Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 26, leave out
          'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'.
          Amendment No. 65, in page 2, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 31 and insert
          'satisfy himself that an organisation—'.
          Amendment No. 40, in page 2, line 30, leave out
          'in particular take into account whether'
          and insert
          'satisfy himself completely, having taken advice from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that'.
          Amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 34, after 'any', insert 'criminal act or any'.
          Amendment No. 67, in page 2, line 36, after 'promoting', insert
          'any criminal act or any'.
          Amendment No. 68, in page 2, line 36, after 'committed', insert 'by any individuals or'.
          50
          Amendment No. 41, in page 2, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
          '(d) has already decommissioned a significant proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.
          Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
          'in working to achieve the decommissioning of all the paramilitary arms of that organisation by or before 22 May 2000 in accordance with the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 (Cm 3883).'.
          Amendment No. 69, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
          'and complying with all procedures and directions given by any such Commission in respect of the decommissioning of the weapons and explosives and other such material owned by or under the control of the organisation'.
          Amendment No. 76, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
          'including by the commencement of actual and ongoing decommissioning of its paramilitary arms'.
          Amendment No. 42, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
          '(e) has commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure;
          (f) in the opinion of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary no longer represents a threat to the community.'.
          Amendment No. 77, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
          '(9A) The fact that an organisation which is a proscribed organisation under either the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 is not specified as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this Act does not affect its status as a proscribed organisation under those Acts.',
          Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 42, leave out '(8)' and insert (9).
          Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'of' to 'apply' and insert 'subsection (8) does'.
          Amendment No. 78, in page 2, line 44, leave out from 'organisation' to end of line 46.
          Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 47, leave out '(8)' and insert (9).
          Amendment No. 74, in clause 9, page 4, line 35, after 'concerned', insert
          'in any criminal act or'.
          Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 36, leave out
          'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'.
          Amendment No. 75, in page 4, line 37, leave out 'Northern Ireland' and insert 'United Kingdom'.
          Mr. MacKay: The two most sensitive issues in the Province and on the mainland are the early release of terrorist prisoners and the decommissioning of arms and explosives. As I have said before, there are elements within the Good Friday agreement that we all find difficult to accept. The element that the Opposition find the most unacceptable is the early release of terrorist prisoners who have committed the most vile and dreadful crimes, and whom any civilised society would put behind bars for a very long time. However, we have reluctantly agreed to the early release of prisoners because it is part of a total agreement that we hope and pray might lead to a lasting settlement in the Province and peace for the people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered so much during the troubles of the past 30 years.

          51
          On reading the agreement, we have taken heart from the fact that it includes clauses on the decommissioning of arms and explosives. The agreement is very specific, and stipulates that all arms and explosives must be decommissioned within two years of the agreement being signed. We have also taken heart from the fact that the early release of prisoners is clearly dependent on the total renunciation of all forms of violence. Any reasonable person would include decommissioning in that.
          5.45 pm
          During the referendum campaign, those of us who supported the Government and the yes campaign rapidly realised that many ordinary, decent people in both communities in Northern Ireland were still worried about the early release of prisoners. So we sought assurances from the Prime Minister that the early release of terrorist prisoners would occur only if their paramilitary associates co-operated fully with the decommissioning commission. We pressed the Prime Minister regularly, and I will give one important example. On 6 May, during Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated:
          "Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives."
          The Prime Minister helpfully responded:
          "Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course, but it goes further."
          Mr. Ingram: What else does it say?
          Mr. MacKay: Once again, the Minister of State asks me what else it says. I am happy to read out the rest of the quotation because it supports my argument. The Prime Minister continued:
          "It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and unequivocal ceasefire."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
          I agree entirely; it is all part of the package. What is more, there is a provision in the agreement for the matter to be kept under constant review. There was absolutely no doubt in our minds, the minds of all reasonable commentators and, much more importantly, the minds of the people of Northern Ireland that they had been given proper reassurances and promises by the Prime Minister.
          When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were in the Province at the end of the referendum campaign, campaigning for a yes vote, we found that many people who previously had reservations had finally decided at the last minute, because of the Prime Minister's assurances, to vote yes. I have absolutely no doubt—and I pay credit to the Prime Minister—that we would not have had a 71 per cent. yes vote without the assurances that he gave and that we had pressed him to give. Without those assurances, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I would not have been able to have said in the House that the result showed that a majority in both communities had voted yes.
          52
          One can imagine our dismay and that of the people of Northern Ireland when the legislation was published. An editorial in The Times this morning stated:
          "Mr. Blair sought to build on that assurance to secure a majority within Unionism for the agreement. The Prime Minister succeeded, but only by making a pledge which the Government now seems intent on fudging."
          The headline was:
          "Irish sentences. This pledge on decommissioning cannot be dodged or fudged."
          Hon. Members should not just take my word for it; they should take the word of The Times in its editorial today. [Interruption.] There is laughter from the Government Benches. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will note that we and The Times are trying to hold the Prime Minister to account on important matters concerning the early release of prisoners and decommissioning, and that those on the Treasury Bench and the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), find it extremely amusing.
          Mr. Peter Robinson: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of fudge, will he explain to the Committee why, when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), made it clear in Prime Minister's questions on 6 May that the Opposition's position was that there should be substantial decommissioning of weapons before any prisoner releases, the Opposition's amendment does not include that requirement?
          Mr. MacKay: We believe that it does. It is right and proper that organisations comply fully with the decommissioning commission. I am grateful to the Secretary of State because we had private discussions before the Bill was drafted and she was kind enough to include the word "fully", which strengthened the Bill. I have no problem with that part of the Bill, as the Secretary of State well knows.
          The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The Bill repeats the Prime Minister's words.
          Mr. MacKay: As the Secretary of State says, the Bill repeats the Prime Minister's words at the Balmoral agricultural show, and I am pleased that they have been included. It means that while prisoners are being released, there will be parallel moves towards decommissioning. We all know that prisoners will be released at different times, depending on the length of their sentence and the remission that they are granted under the Bill.
          The Bill is unsatisfactory in that it requires the Secretary of State and her successors merely to take into account whether there is co-operation with the decommissioning commission. We mean no disrespect to the Secretary of State, but that is a cop-out; it is weak and insufficient. The logical conclusion is that a Secretary of State can take into account whether decommissioning is taking place, decide that other, perhaps political, factors are more important and say, "It does not matter that decommissioning is not taking place. We shall go ahead and release the prisoners anyway." The Bill does not contain the copper-bottomed guarantee given by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on 6 May and repeated around the Province by him and his spin doctors.

          53
          Our amendment simply states:
          "The Secretary of State may specify by order that an organisation is not a terrorist organisation if on application by that organisation he believes that it"—
          this is the condition in paragraph (e)—
          "is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7".
          That confirms and makes copper-bottomed the Prime Minister's pledge. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will accept the amendment.
          This is a matter of trust, which goes to the heart of government. People voted on the basis of the Prime Minister's pledges and assurances. They were encouraged to do so by me and my colleagues because we believed those assurances. [Interruption.] Now we find that they are not included in the Bill, which is unacceptable.
          Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
          Mr. MacKay: Let us have nothing from the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) or anyone else about these being in any way wrecking amendments, or amendments that go against the agreement.
          I shall quote again from the editorial in The Times today. Referring to the amendment in my name, it states:
          "His is not a wrecking or teasing amendment, but an attempt to write into law a pledge freely given. If the Government does not accept it, then other parties in the Commons should feel free to oppose what could be fatally flawed legislation."
          I warn the Secretary of State that if our amendments are not accepted in an appropriate form, we shall be unable to support the Bill on Third Reading because it will be fatally flawed and wrong. It will let down the people of Northern Ireland and show that in future, we shall never be able to trust the word of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box.
          Mr. Winnick: I do not for one moment question the need for the Committee to be concerned about decommissioning; I am in favour of it. The Good Friday agreement spells out clearly what should be done. It has often been argued, in the previous Parliament and this Parliament, that if organisations that have been involved in terrorism want to show genuine good faith, one way in which to do so is to decommission their arms. There is no argument about the desirability of decommissioning; we are all in favour of it.
          It is important to bear in mind the fact that decommissioning in itself does not demonstrate that an organisation, whether it is the IRA or a loyalist paramilitary group, would necessarily stick by the ceasefire. Some arms could be given up, but, however desirable that is in itself, it does not demonstrate that violence would not occur again. Let there be no misunderstanding—I am keen for decommissioning to take place, but the question would inevitably arise of what percentage of arms was being given up. Some would say that it was only a small percentage. How could one show that all arms, or the majority of them, were being given up? Those questions are bound to arise. However desirable decommissioning is, the important factor is that the organisations that have engaged in violence should not return to it.
          Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if an organisation has pledged to give up violence and
          54
          moreover, as part of the agreement, has pledged to facilitate decommissioning and carry it out within two years, nothing could be better construed as an act preparatory to violence than a failure to decommission?
          Mr. Winnick: As I have already said, to decommission would undoubtedly show the genuineness of the organisation's concern. There is no difference of opinion between us about the desirability of decommissioning, but we are debating whether it will occur along the lines that we would like. I return to my earlier point about how much decommissioning will take place. For example, if the Provisional IRA gives up some arms, will we be satisfied that those were all it possessed or will people, perhaps including me, say that it is only a small percentage and ask why it does not give up the rest?
          Even more important than decommissioning is that those organisations that have been involved in terrorism should no longer engage in such violent acts. They should no longer commit the crimes and atrocities that many of the prisoners have carried out and of which they have duly been convicted. Those crimes and atrocities on both sides have appalled decent-minded men and women, and we hope that they have now permanently come to an end.
          Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the Sinn Fein Ard-Fheis which endorsed the agreement, speaker after speaker stated that the party should maintain the twin-track policy of a military strategy which required the retention of arms as well as the political path? How does that square with his suggestion that we should trust these people, when they will not decommission?
          6 pm
          Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands my argument: it is not a matter of trusting such people. I am very reluctant to trust anyone engaged in terrorism, or anyone who has been an apologist for terrorism. The fact is that the agreement, which the hon. and learned Gentleman strenuously opposes, has been reached. There are other aspects to decommissioning that must be borne in mind.
          The IRA argument is that it was never militarily defeated, and that to give up its arms would be a sign of defeat. We know that it was never militarily defeated; we only wish it had been. That would have avoided so many of the terrible crimes committed over the past quarter century. The IRA has, however, been politically defeated—[Interruption.] I do not know what the mumbling is about. The Provisional IRA set out in 1970 to use terrorism and violence to force Northern Ireland, against the wishes of its majority, to leave the United Kingdom. The IRA worked on the assumption over all these years that, if it applied enough pressure by bombing at home and on the mainland, sooner or later, the British people and their Government would weaken, whereupon it would get what it wanted. It has not got what it wanted. Northern Ireland Members know that a united Ireland is as remote today—it may be even more remote—as it was when the IRA started off in 1970.
          If anything, the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom, never questioned by the international community, has been strengthened as a result of the constitutional changes in the Irish Republic.

          55
          So while there is understandable concern about decommissioning, it would be unfortunate if we did not look at the larger political picture. Like all its predecessors since 1920, the IRA has not succeeded. A united Ireland will not come about through violence or terrorism—as many of us said at the time when we had the chance to express our views directly to Sinn Fein.
          I remember a meeting in September 1983, when a delegation from the parliamentary Labour party Northern Ireland group, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), went to Northern Ireland to meet representatives of the political organisations that agreed to speak to us. One such organisation was Sinn Fein, whose leadership were in attendance. I said then that the IRA would never succeed. No section of the community in Britain would allow it to, or would reject the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the larger political picture.
          Fortunately, the leadership of Sinn Fein and the IRA have come around to the view that the military campaign begun in 1970 will not succeed. As we know from our constituency post bags, there was not the slightest sign of the British people saying, "We have had enough; we will give in." It would be quite wrong, therefore, not to recognise the political victory over terrorism that democracy has achieved.
          The Provisional IRA's predecessor, the Official IRA—it is now split into various groups whose attitude to Northern Ireland is more Unionist than that of the Unionists, if that is possible—ultimately gave up terrorism. That is why the Provisionals appeared on the scene. At least two main political parties that originated half a century ago in the Irish Republic, during what is known there as the war of independence and then the civil war, never gave up their arms, but were no less committed to constitutional practice than we are.
          Nothing in the Bill would allow the automatic release of prisoners. If it did, many people, not least me, would be worried. The Bill spells out precisely what is necessary before prisoners can be released. The organisation to which they belong must be
          "committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives".
          That will have to be decided on the merits of each case. An organisation must have
          "ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence … directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations".
          These are surely important criteria; certain assurances on them will have to be given to the commission.
          The cynical view that the agreement is a charade and that the IRA is not genuinely interested in ceasefires is a different matter altogether—but it is not the view, I understand, of the main Opposition party. The Opposition accept the agreement, even though there can be no guarantees, especially when dealing with organisations such as IRA-Sinn Fein. But it is certainly worth testing its commitment to see whether it is genuine.
          When, in November 1993, the Conservative Government announced their contacts with the IRA—no ceasefire being in operation at the time—the Labour Opposition made no mileage out of that, although it is
          56
          quite legitimate for Oppositions to do so on a host of other issues. We took the view that if the then Government were entertaining contacts with the IRA without a formal ceasefire, they were not doing so for fun or for electoral favours. They were doing it because they believed that it was in the national interest. They wanted to test the water, to discover whether there was any possibility that the IRA was genuine.
          I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), leading for the Opposition, saying that we accepted the then Government's explanation and would pursue the same path.
          Mr. MacKay: The Committee is aware of the hon. Gentleman's considerable experience and knowledge of the subject, as co-chairman of the British-Irish parliamentary body. He has outlined some of the preconditions in clause 3(9), and he may have noticed me nodding my assent to them. My problem is not with them; it is with the fact that the Secretary of State
          "shall in particular take into account"
          whether these organisations are meeting the conditions. I suggest that that is not strong enough; I suggest that the conditions must be satisfied. Does the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience of the Province, agree?
          Mr. Winnick: I do not believe that there is much difference between Government and Opposition. We agree on the desirability of decommissioning, which we all want. No one would suggest that the Prime Minister is any less convinced of its desirability than is the hon. Gentleman. To my knowledge, no one—at least in the official Opposition—would wish to question that. No one would wish to question that it is largely a matter of taking into consideration many factors to discover whether it is possible to reach a position where, by and large, there is permanent peace in Northern Ireland—at least, where the main terrorist organisations will no longer engage in such activity. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) made a genuine point—not just a debating point. Either we must find a possible compromise, or the Government may decide whether it is possible under the agreement to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
          At the weekend, Conservative spin doctors did much to create the impression that the official Opposition were not satisfied, and might vote against the Government today or on Third Reading. That would be extremely undesirable. In my view—I may be wrong; others will assess that—one reason why, over the past 25 or 27 years, we have succeeded in preventing Northern Ireland from becoming a political issue to the extent that it produces conflicting exchanges between Government and Opposition resembling those that, rightly in a democracy, take place on many other issues, is that we basically agreed on the main issues. We agreed on the defeat of terrorism—on trying to persuade those engaged in terrorism that their objectives could not be reached, and that constitutional means were the only way in which there could be any suggestion of uniting Ireland. It is up to those who want a united Ireland to argue their point of view in a democratic way—
          The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. I have been most generous to the hon. Gentleman, recognising that he has much experience and historical

          57
          knowledge to bring to the debate, but I must ask him to bring himself more closely within the terms of the amendment.
          Mr. Winnick: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hara.
          We have succeeded over the past 27 years because the main political parties in the House have been united. As I have illustrated, at various times in opposition—such as when contacts were made with the IRA—we gave support when we could have made much of what the previous Government were doing. I repeat, in conclusion, that it would be unfortunate if, today or on Third Reading, hon. Members were to divide the unity that has been established on the means of reaching a settlement in Northern Ireland. It is important that we preserve that unity between the main parties, and it would not be desirable for the Committee to divide—at least between the official Opposition and the Government—on the desirability of decommissioning, on which there is no basic disagreement.
          Mr. Robert McCartney: Listening to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I had to pinch myself to believe what I was hearing. Contrary to what he said, the IRA has not been defeated in any manner—many of us in Northern Ireland suspect that that is because no real effort has ever been made to defeat it. Many of us believe—the belief is widespread—that the hon. Gentleman's fears that a great division of opinion will occur between the official Opposition and the Government on the present arrangements are unfounded.
          Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. When he says that the IRA has not been defeated, presumably he means politically defeated. That is precisely what the IRA and Sinn Fein constantly tell their members. They may boast that they have not been defeated, but is it not a fact that what the Provisional IRA set out to do in 1970—to bring about, by violence, the unity of Ireland—is as remote now as it was then? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not admit it?
          6.15 pm
          Mr. McCartney: I do not admit it because it is a myth. Sinn Fein-IRA have retained all their weaponry. Their record from 1970 to the present time is one of unremitting political success.
          The IRA has retained all its weaponry; there is no suggestion that, militarily, it is any less strong than it was. From a political point of view, under the terms of the agreement, it has obtained, or will almost certainly obtain, two Ministers in Government in a Northern Ireland Assembly under the d'Hondt provisions. It has made it clear that it considers the agreement nothing more than a transitional phase, en route to journey's end.
          The IRA has removed section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which asserted the sovereignty of this Parliament over
          "all persons, matters, and things"
          in Northern Ireland. It has made the Act of Union and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 subordinate to the proposed legislation setting up the political and constitutional settlement relating to the agreement. It will obtain executive bodies, including a north-south
          58
          ministerial council with all-Ireland executive powers. It will obtain implementation bodies on an all-Ireland basis, to implement those powers. It is a record not of failure but of unremitting success.
          Amendment No.1, tabled by the official Opposition, contains several weaknesses. The suggestion that the requirement to co-operate
          "fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 published as Cm 3883"
          requires the IRA to decommission anything within two years is a complete misreading of the situation. The agreement requires Sinn Fein, or any other political party fronting a terrorist organisation, only to use such influence as it may have in persuading that organisation to disarm.
          Everyone knows that Sinn Fein happily signed up to the Mitchell principles, which required more or less the same commitment. Sinn Fein will happily sign up to any of the requirements in the agreement. It will then simply say, "We are a political party. We have an electoral mandate. We have sufficient Members under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill to entitle us to two Ministers in Government, and we have no guns and no Semtex. As long as we use such influence as we may have, you cannot put us out if the IRA refuses to decommission." At the same time, it will use as political leverage, in the assembly or in future negotiations, the threat of a renewed IRA mainland campaign to extract further concessions from the Government, as it has from a series of British Governments. It is laughable to suggest that it has recognised the principle of consent.
          The fact that there could never be a united Ireland without the practical consent of a majority of the population in Northern Ireland never required any Act of Parliament or any agreement. It was a brute fact of political life with which those nationalists always had to contend, but there was an additional factor in relation to the majority in Northern Ireland saying no. There was the assertion by the British Government of their sovereign right over Northern Ireland as part of a unitary state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
          Martin McGuinness and the Taoiseach have both said categorically that, as a result of the agreement, the British people and the British Parliament are out of the equation of the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. That was said not by an Ulster Unionist, but by a Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, and the statement has been made not on one occasion, but on many occasions.
          Of course, that is correct. Before the agreement, there was a claim of sovereignty by the British Government. That no longer exists under the terms of the agreement. To assert in the House that the IRA has suffered any military or political defeat is erroneous. The people who have suffered defeat are the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland.
          The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's preamble on the nature and principles of the IRA was rather lengthy. When he saw my body language, he returned to the amendment, but he is now straying back to his preamble. I ask him to return to the terms of the amendment.
          Mr. McCartney: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. O'Hara.

          59
          The hon. Member for Walsall, North need have no fear of any reappraisal of the joint position of the Government and the Opposition on Northern Ireland. There will be some form of agreed fudge on this essential issue.
          Mr. Winnick: Good.
          Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman may well say "Good," but I remind him of a principle that has been stated many times. When the Opposition and the Government are noisily and vigorously in opposition, the principles of democracy and the best conventions of the House are being observed, but when the Opposition and the Government are in a state of unctuous, self-congratulatory cohesion and are assisting one another, people somewhere—in this case, the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland—are being treated shabbily.
          The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the silence of the then Opposition at the time when Sir Patrick Mayhew—now Lord Mayhew—was conducting the secret negotiations. That has been the record in this House in relation to the pro-Union majority in Northern Ireland, and it will continue through the fudge of an amendment that is not serious and does not address the real issue.
          Mr. McNamara: If there was unctuous cohesion, it does not seem to be present in this debate. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition on the matter, so the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) should not read too much into what has happened in the past. There may be other disagreements with the Opposition on the agreement, although I hope that those will not arise.
          The uniqueness of the agreement is indeed that the British Government no longer claim sovereignty, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would define it, but the sovereignty lies in the people of Northern Ireland. Their position will not be altered except by their consent. The irony is that that guarantee is supported not by the people of Great Britain, but by the people of the whole of Ireland, by an overwhelming majority. Those who want a united Ireland have guaranteed those who want to maintain their British connection their right to do so as long as they have a majority.
          That is far more important than any alteration that may have been made to the Act of Union or to the Government of Ireland Act 1920, because the power now lies with the people in Northern Ireland. I hope that in time that will lead to a united Ireland, but that will be the decision—
          The Temporary Chairman: Order. Once again, I must remind an hon. Member that the subject under debate is the definition and specification of terrorist organisations.
          Mr. McNamara: I was suggesting that those who signed up to the agreement, whether they were terrorist organisations or not, misinterpreted it if they did not understand the changed situation that resulted from it. The British Government are present in Northern Ireland only by virtue of the consent of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland, while there is a majority in the north who want us there.
          60
          The amendment is interesting. A rehabilitation process is being undertaken by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). Not having been present when the agreement was signed, he is trying to demonstrate his presence now. His amendment is superfluous, unless the Opposition are attempting again to rewrite the agreement.
          Clause 3(8) and (9) contain the Blair criteria. Some of us would argue that those go beyond what was in the agreement or in any document shown by the British Government to the parties during the talks. Those criteria certainly were not in the briefing document, which explained the Government's view of the effect of the agreement in the section on prisoner release. The amendment goes too far in imposing new conditions on the process.
          In addition to the questions about linking decommissioning with release, the amendment raises other problems. The agreement does not say that decommissioning must have been achieved within two years of the agreement. The hon. Member for Bracknell says that he is stiffening up the agreement·or expressing in other words what is in the agreement, but that is not the case.
          The agreement states:
          "All participants … also confirmed their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have"—
          which suggests that some of them have no influence—
          "to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement".
          The agreement does not state that that will be achieved. It does not set a deadline. That is an aspiration.
          Mr. Grieve: How can there be a clear and unequivocal ceasefire, as provided for in clause 2, and a commitment to, and declaration of support for, exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences, if one of the parties to the agreement reneges on the undertaking to decommission in the two-year period?
          Mr. McNamara: The parties have not reneged on any undertaking to decommission within two years. If the hon. Gentleman reads the agreement, he will see that it says that they will use their best offices in that regard. As no one is exploding bombs and there is no paramilitary activity, it suggests that people have covertly—if not openly—acquiesced to what has been suggested. That is absolutely correct and should occur.
          The proposed new subsection (8) purports to establish an objective test of what is a terrorist organisation, but it eliminates completely the judgment or belief of the Secretary of State. Therefore, any decision would presumably be reviewable by a court. Judicial review of my right hon. Friend's decision can occur, but only if that decision is perverse, it is an administrative matter, the correct procedure has not been followed, or the decision was contrary to natural justice. Under this amendment, a public review could be requested.
          The proposed subsection (9)(d) introduces a new decommissioning test, which is about the overt policy of paramilitary organisations rather than their concrete actions. In other words, if the IRA were to decommission weapons, but could not bring itself to admit that in public, under the terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, IRA prisoners would be ineligible for release. That would be manifestly unfair.

          61
          6.30 pm
          New subsection (9)(e) refers to co-operating fully with the decommissioning body
          "in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement".
          That is presumably intended to add the test of making significant moves towards decommissioning within two years—which is what the hon. Gentleman said. However, the agreement views that as a parallel process that is not linked to prisoner release. There is no linkage between prisoner release and decommissioning in the document—and nor was there any such linkage in the briefing documents. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman again seeks to rewrite the agreement.
          Mr. Robert McCartney: I agree entirely that that linkage is not in the agreement, but it is most definitely present in the Prime Minister's undertakings to the people of Northern Ireland.
          Mr. McNamara: Like everyone else, the Prime Minister was bound by the agreement, and the undertakings that he gave were in the spirit of that agreement. That is apparent from the tests in the existing clauses. Some people would claim that the Bill goes too far, but I believe that it is just about acceptable on the basis of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said. I remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister is no more in a position to rewrite the agreement than the Taoiseach, the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP or any other party that signed the agreement—the agreement is the agreement is the agreement. Anyone who tries to put a gloss on it, engage in some sort of scriptural exegesis on it or say that something is in it when it is not will be in a very difficult position.
          This is the agreement for which the people of Ireland voted and which was in the document that my right hon. Friend presented to Parliament. The Bill encompasses the spirit of the Belfast agreement regarding the release of prisoners and I believe that we should reject amendment No. 1 out of hand. I think it reprehensible that those who jumped on the coat-tails of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—they realised that the Good Friday agreement was a jolly good thing and said, "Please sir, me too sir; can I be associated with it too, sir?"—should now be engaged in the spurious and damaging business of trying to undermine everything in that agreement.
          Mr. Hunter: If the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is correct, I fear that many people in Northern Ireland will regret the vote that they cast in the referendum and will seek other avenues and channels through which to express that regret. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I listened to the theological debate with great interest. I suppose that the matter will be decided ultimately through on-going dialogue between my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the Secretary of State and the Government. However, there is clearly a fundamental difference of interpretation.
          I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 1 and then to amendments (a) and (b), which I tabled. My hon. Friend will know how much support he received from Opposition Members when, on Second Reading, he said:
          "a significant number of moderate people in both communities finally decided to vote yes only when the Prime Minister had given them a clear and unequivocal assurance that decommissioning and the renunciation of violence would be incorporated in the legislation on early prisoner release and the setting up of the assembly.
          62
          In the Opposition's view, the Bill goes only some of the way to satisfying those assurances and will, therefore, require amendment in Committee next week. The most serious omission is that it does not establish a clear legislative linkage between some actual decommissioning having taken place and the accelerated release of prisoners."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1093–94.]
          Later in the debate, my hon. Friend intervened on the Minister of State, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Referring to the Prime Minister's exchange with the Leader of the Opposition on 6 May, my hon. Friend said:
          "Any reasonable person who looks at what he"—
          the Prime Minister—
          "said—and a lot of reasonable people in the Province looked at it and decided in the end to vote yes during the referendum campaign—would judge that decommissioning had to take place before prisoners were released. That is absolute fact. If that is not conceded in the legislation, the people of Northern Ireland will have been ratted upon."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1163–64.]
          My hon. Friend then withdrew his final words.
          I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech today. He assured us that, as a result of his private exchange with the Secretary of State, he was of the opinion that amendment No. 1 conforms with the specifications and requirements that he urged on Second Reading. I am sure that many people will study carefully both the amendments and my hon. Friend's words. Some of us have a slight difficulty, in that we were not privy to the conversation between my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State, and are therefore not precisely sure of the line of reasoning, the interpretation of the Bill and the interpretation of the Opposition amendments that led to that reconciliation of views, and which assured my hon. Friend—and should therefore assure us—that amendment No. 1 is consistent with the actual and on-going decommissioning of weapons during the process of prisoner releases.
          That difficulty is compounded somewhat by the fact that those Conservative Members who have followed events in Northern Ireland over time were asked five years ago to defend the position that the IRA had to decommission all its weapons and explosives before it was admitted to negotiations. In the course of time, we were asked to defend the position that only some weapons and explosives had to be decommissioned.
          In course of time, that, too, was changed, and we were asked to support and defend the new position: that the IRA should decommission weapons and explosives during the course of the talks. We defended that position. That was then changed, and we were asked to defend the position that only some of its weapons and explosives needed to be decommissioned during the talks.
          Now the position has changed, and we are happy to rise in defence of the position that all weapons will be decommissioned by 2000. However, we should like a little more persuasion that that could not be interpreted as, once again, bowing to the threat of terror, or prostituting the rule of law to the demands of those who have no respect for law or order.
          Amendment (a) to amendment No. 1 proposes to add a requirement to those conditions that an organisation must

          63
          observe and the requirements it must meet for it to be deemed not to be a terrorist organisation. I propose that that organisation should not be involved
          "in raising funds through coercion, extortion or any other illegal means;".
          I raised that point at Second Reading during the speech of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), because the requirements in the Bill and the Opposition amendment are deficient in that one important respect.
          It is right that an organisation deemed "not terrorist" must be committed exclusively to democratic and peaceful means and must not be involved in acts of violence, in preparing acts of violence or in sub-contracting others to do the same. That leaves untouched the area of terrorist funds and fund-raising activities. Any organisation can raise funds legally for legal and legitimate purposes which are non-terrorist. That is not the point I have in mind.
          Historically, terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have been involved in raising money by a number of illegal means—racketeering, blatant extortion and coercion, and the illegal siphoning of funds from superficially legitimate practices. Those illegal practices are among the hallmarks of a terrorist organisation. If an organisation continues to practise them, it can reasonably be assumed that the organisation is continuing, or is preparing to resume, activities for which illegal funds are required. I appreciate that it might be argued that the practices that I have in mind are covered by the prohibition of "preparation for violence", but that is questionable at the very least.
          If the Government are seeking to include that sort of activity as an indication that an organisation is a terrorist organisation, I would suggest that that should be made explicit in the Bill. I would therefore argue for the inclusion of my proposed paragraph (ba) into the new subsection (9), and I ask the Government to give that serious consideration. I acknowledge that the wording may be imperfect—it was my own effort and it could, therefore, be regarded as a probing amendment. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will take it seriously.
          With my amendment (b), the argument—which I hope is sustainable—is that we are not seeking to alter the agreement, but we wish to obtain clarification and definition of how the agreement is to be implemented in practical terms. The amendment proposes to add three further subsections to the proposed subsection (9).
          6.45 pm
          Clause 3(9)(d) requires an organisation to be "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning commission. I hope that all Opposition Members can be reassured that the wording of amendment No. 1 incorporates actual and continuing decommissioning during prisoner release. I am seeking to explore, probe and establish what might be at stake here. In amendment No. 1, two additional requirements are proposed by way of clarification. The first is that the organisation must be committed
          "to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, including any of its own, by 22nd May 2000."
          64
          I propose that there should be a further definition of "co-operating fully" which, perhaps, is not inconsistent with the understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell has formed following his conversation with the Secretary of State. First, there must already have been decommissioning—an advance payment of good intent. Secondly, that must have amounted to a significant proportion of that organisation's illegally held arms. Thirdly, the organisation will have begun implementing a decommissioning timetable to be completed before 22 May 2000.
          Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I may not get a chance to speak because of the numbers who wish to take part in the debate. Does he agree that one of the difficulties of his amendment—and one of the difficulties faced by the Government—is precision? Once one tries for precision, one can further cloud the waters. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "a significant proportion"? What does he mean by
          "commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure"?
          Unless we know where we are starting from, both definitions are impossible to attain.
          Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my prime point. The Bill as it stands simply contains the phrase "co-operating fully". I am trying to advance a way—he tells me that it is insufficient—of defining what the Government mean by "co-operating fully". In a sense, his fundamental objection is not directed at me, but at the Bill for failing to define what "co-operating fully" means. I am trying to answer the very same question that he is posing.
          Mr. Willis: But the hon. Gentleman is not answering it in the amendment.
          Mr. Hunter: I hear the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention, but, with respect, I would not for a moment claim that my drafting is perfect. I regard myself as an amateur in these matters. I am merely pointing towards what I believe to be a definition and a clarification of the concept of fully co-operating, which requires such definition and clarification. I do not suppose that he could improve my amendment, although that would be an interesting academic debate on another occasion.
          Paragraph (e) of my amendment (b) demands the dismantling of paramilitary structure. I shall accelerate and simply make the point that terrorist organisations cannot operate in a vacuum because their classic activities—recruiting, training, intelligence gathering, targeting, researching and testing improvised weapons, purchasing arms, fund raising and so on—require organisation, command and communication structures, cells and active units. One indication of serious intent would be the dismantling of those structures.
          Paragraph (f) of my amendment (b) requires the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to conclude that any organisation
          "no longer represents a threat to the community."
          That is entirely reasonable. The Bill states that the decision would be a solo decision made by the Secretary of State—ultimately, it would be subjective. This part of my amendment (b) addresses both of those valid points and criticisms. As a confidence-building measure, to use

          65
          the fashionable phrase, it is reasonable to seek an endorsement from a second party, and the Chief Constable of the RUC is appropriate. I hope that consideration will be given to those points.
          Mr. Peter Robinson: The amendments go to the heart of a controversy that has raged for considerable time in Northern Ireland. The question is, will the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom live up to the commitments he gave to the people of Northern Ireland—commitments which many hon. Members decided on Second Reading were essential for a yes vote in the referendum, which was obtained? Speaker after speaker recognised that his intervention, his visits to Northern Ireland, his issuing of commitments in the House and in the Province, and his speeches—he even went to the extent of signing billboards with his commitments written thereon—encouraged many people in Northern Ireland to believe that his interpretation of the agreement, which was contrary to the interpretation of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and myself, was one which they could accept.
          That interpretation, as it relates to the Bill, ensured that there would be direct linkage between the handing over of illegal weapons by paramilitary organisations and the release of paramilitary prisoners. There was no doubt in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland what the Prime Minister was conveying to them. They believed, and their newspapers, television and radio led them to believe, that he was saying expressly what he had said in the House to the Leader of the Opposition.
          The Leader of the Opposition asked:
          "Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"
          The Prime Minister said that the answer to that question was yes. That was yes to substantial decommissioning of illegal weapons, before prisoners were to be released. He went on to say:
          "the independent Commission, and the Secretary of State, are bound to have regard to whether decommissioning has taken place."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
          There was no doubt in the mind of the Prime Minister on 6 May; nor could there have been any doubt in the mind of the Opposition on the response that they had received from him. There was certainly no doubt in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland that the agreement that they were about to vote for in the referendum made sure that there would be decommissioning before prisoner releases would take place.
          When we looked at the Bill, we looked to see whether the Prime Minister's promise to the people of Northern Ireland would be kept. Clearly it has not been kept. There is no requirement for decommissioning, and prisoners can, and no doubt will, be released before one ounce of Semtex, one bullet, one detonator or one gun is handed over. Every hon. Member knows that that is what will happen, because the Bill is the same sort of fudge that has happened before.
          The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) described the sad and sorry tale of how decommissioning has been dealt with by the House. All of us were told, not only by Prime Minister, that the requirement was there for Sinn Fein-IRA to decommission before they could get into the talks process. A Unionist leader even said that, if they did not do it, he would bring the talks to an end. They did not do it, but the talks went on.
          66
          The same Unionist leader strangely voted against Second Reading of the Bill; I thought that Second Reading was a vote on the principle, yet the principle that he voted against was one that he had supported when he signed the agreement. That is strange, but it is not for me to unravel. Unfortunately, he is not here to unravel it for himself.
          The talks process proceeded without any decommissioning taking place, yet a smokescreen was put up by various leaders before the talks began to suggest to the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning would occur, if not at the beginning, then during the process. Exactly the same smokescreen is going up today. The commitment is not in the Bill, and I must say to the Opposition spokesman that it certainly is not in his amendment—it just is not there. The amendment stands up like a limp piece of lettuce. It has no backbone, is devoid of substance, and does not fulfil what clearly was the view of the Leader of the Opposition, who, in his question on 6 May, said that not only prior decommissioning, but substantial decommissioning, was required.
          The amendment does not require substantial decommissioning. I intervened on the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who said that he had come away from what I hope was a cosy meeting with the Secretary of State convinced that, if he could get the substance of the amendment through the House or achieve an undertaking to that effect, it would mean what I want it to mean—that there would be prior decommissioning. The Secretary of State or the Minister will be able to say in winding up whether the Government's interpretation is that there will be prior decommissioning.
          Marjorie Mowlam: May I help the hon. Gentleman? I offered briefings to Members of both Houses who wanted the detail of the Bill, because I thought that it had not been explained in the press as helpfully as it perhaps could have been. I offered and carried out a number of briefings, but I never discussed specifically worded amendments. I did say, helpfully, to a number of hon. Members that we would consider anything that they wanted to bring forward. That is what happened.
          Mr. Robinson: It gets more and more interesting. It must have been the Secretary of State's aura that persuaded the Opposition that what she intended to do was of greater substance than the amendment suggests. Nothing in the amendment even hints at prior decommissioning. To suggest that adding the words
          "in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 published as Cm 3883"
          means that there will be prior decommissioning is nonsense. As the hon. Member for Hull, North says, the agreement does not require decommissioning. It requires that the participants
          "also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement."
          7 pm
          Thus the agreement contains only an undertaking to use influence. It contains no requirement, and imposes no

          67
          sanction, if decommissioning does not happen, so let us not suggest to the people of Northern Ireland that the insertion of some reference to the Belfast agreement suddenly creates a requirement for decommissioning to take place. Nothing could be further from the truth.
          A smokescreen has been put up not only by the Government in references in the Bill, but, sadly, by the Opposition in their amendment, which does not meet the requirement of people from my tradition: prior decommissioning. That brings us back to the issue of defining a terrorist organisation.
          If an organisation holds on to a stockpile of 100 tonnes of weaponry, it is reasonable to describe it as a terrorist organisation. "Not so," says the Secretary of State. "It can hold on to those weapons and still not be defined as a terrorist organisation. It will therefore not be specified on the list." The Secretary of State and I have different opinions on that matter, and she is entitled to her view. However, the Opposition have shown many times in the past that their view is precisely the same as mine.
          Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he has been quoting me incorrectly extensively. Let me explain to the House again the difference between the Opposition and the Government at this stage—I hope that the difference will not remain for much longer.
          The Bill as it stands says only that the Secretary of State must take into account whether paramilitary groups are co-operating with the commission. We say that any paramilitary group and its political associates must prove to the Secretary of State that they have been complying with the commission—in other words, decommissioning. That is the matter in dispute. There is no smokescreen from the Opposition. The only smokescreen comes from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who, instead of trying to smear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues who have worked hard towards the agreement, should try to ensure that, like us—
          The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is a lengthy intervention. I am conscious that there is a guillotine on this debate in less than half an hour.
          Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman's argument does not cut ice. Even if a requirement is placed on the Secretary of State, the requirement still does not include prior decommissioning.
          The amendment does not say that there must be prior decommissioning. The hon. Gentleman simply cannot get away with saying that the Secretary of State is required to deal with those issues.
          Mr. MacKay indicated dissent.
          Mr. Robinson: He shakes his head like a nodding dog in the back of a car, but that does not disprove my argument. The fact remains that the Leader of the Opposition made it abundantly clear at the Dispatch Box that he required substantial decommissioning before any terrorists were to be released. The Opposition have not included that in their amendment, the Government have
          68
          not included it in the Bill, and it is therefore clear to the people of Northern Ireland that not only the Government but the official Opposition have welshed on their commitment.
          Mr. Tom King: I wish to speak briefly on the most sensitive issue in the agreement. Like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I recall a meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body, which happened to be meeting on the day when the Downing Street declaration was signed. It met in the morning, and it was decided to debate the agreement in the afternoon. Although a number of British Members expressed general enthusiasm and optimism for the declaration and the further opportunities that it offered, they recognised that one of the key issues that would have to be addressed immediately, obviously and naturally, was decommissioning.
          Every Irish Member of the Dail who was at that meeting regarded that as the most unhelpful intervention that British Members could have made. They said that those who knew anything about the history of Ireland thought that anybody who talked about decommissioning must be seeking to wreck any hope of progress, and that it was quite unrealistic to expect decommissioning to take place, especially in the time frame then envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That showed, at that moment in the process, that decommissioning would prove to be an extremely difficult issue.
          In my experience of Northern Ireland, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who has now left the Chamber, is the classic illustration of those from the Unionist side who believe nothing from their own Government but read every Sinn Fein speech avidly from cover to cover, and believe every word in them. He is someone who does not listen to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) saying that the agreement strengthens the Union, because that is the speech listened to by Sinn Fein, who fear it does. The speeches made by the Sinn Fein leadership are read by various people on the wings of Unionism—those who cannot form their own view, and believe everything they hear.
          The hon. Gentleman was well answered by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It was a rare occasion when I agreed with almost everything that he said about the importance of the decisions being made by the people on the island of Ireland. Their decision confirms the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom so long as the people of Northern Ireland so wish it. The fact that that is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of people throughout the island of Ireland destroys the central plank of Sinn Fein's arguments over the years.
          After that, however, the hon. Member for Hull, North made an appalling speech. If ever anything was more significantly off message, I cannot imagine it. He said that the Prime Minister's contribution and pledges should be disregarded, and that the Prime Minister had no authority to make a pledge, because he could only hand round copies of the agreement and give no reassurance. He said that the decisions of the people of Northern Ireland, which everybody recognises, and the Prime Minister's intervention, contribution and pledges were critical to the outcome of the referendum. There would be no

          69
          agreement, and we would not be having this debate today, if there had not been a positive vote in the referendum, and the Prime Minister's pledge was critical in achieving that result.
          I wish to say a word about decommissioning. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was right: we do not start from here. Unfortunately, we start from a succession of concessions that have been made over decommissioning. The hon. Member for Hull, North gave me the impression that he was against decommissioning. I do not think that he meant to give that impression. He may have been seeking to say that it was a question of timing and that it should not be forced, but he seemed to say that there was no case for it.
          Many people in Northern Ireland never expected to be in this position. They always thought that the other side would put up an insuperable roadblock, which meant that they could go along with the process because they would not be the ones who ultimately would wreck it. I have heard Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin say that he thought that the Unionists had gone further than he ever expected. In those circumstances, I am not yet satisfied that Sinn Fein has gone further than it expected to go. Decommissioning is the step—for Sinn Fein and perhaps for a wider spectrum of Irish opinion—that they must now be prepared to take.
          I recognise that all sorts of complications and sensitivities are involved in decommissioning. I have the impression that General de Chastelain and his colleagues have been anxious to come up with ways in which those sensitivities can be met, and some weapons can be handed over.
          I know that there is a nervousness and insecurity about exposure to the threat from loyalist terror gangs, but it is not possible to fight such gangs with heavy machine guns, sniper rifles, RPG7s and other rocket launchers. We may not be able to decommission fertiliser, which has been one of the more effective terrorist weapons in recent years, but we can take an intelligent and constructive approach.
          The Secretary of State knows how loth I have been to intervene in these matters, as I have a deep sympathy for anyone facing the challenges and pressures of her office. However, I believe that we must make a start on decommissioning, and we must make it absolutely clear that the period of concessions on this matter will not be an endless push at an open door.
          I think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the challenge was whether people who have an influence over these matters are genuine about wanting peace. As I understand it, the Continuity IRA has access to some weapons. The quartermaster may be part of that splinter group. While those arms exist, despite the good faith of the people whom, at present, the Secretary of State must talk to, negotiate with and accept binding commitments from, there is no guarantee that they will hold control of that very dangerous weaponry for ever. Against that background, a positive step must be taken to remove the weapons from the island of Ireland.
          Several hon. Members rose—
          The Temporary Chairman: Order. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that time is short, and that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
          Mr. Donaldson: I shall be brief, and I shall speak to amendments Nos. 21, 76 and 77.
          70
          Amendments Nos. 21 and 76 deal with the issue of linking decommissioning to the release of prisoners. Decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. It is in the agreement, and it is politically correct to link various aspects of the agreement. It may not be explicit in the agreement that certain aspects are linked, but the Bill clearly links decommissioning to the release of prisoners. It is one of a range of factors that the Secretary of State is to take into account in determining whether a terrorist organisation is no longer acting as such.
          Decommissioning is important, because it is tangible evidence of whether terrorist organisations are committed to democratic and peaceful means. This agreement has been sold to the people of Northern Ireland as providing the way towards peace. How can we hope to get peace if the terrorist organisations that hold these paramilitary arms are not prepared to decommission them? We are not talking about a few arms: the IRA has more than 100 tonnes of illegal weaponry. That is a huge arsenal on a small island. We cannot ignore that fact, because, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, it is not just the IRA that has access to those weapons, but other organisations that have apparently broken away from the IRA.
          Decommissioning is important not only to achieving stability but as tangible evidence that the IRA, the UDA and the UVF are now committed to exclusively peaceful means. If decommissioning does not happen, that will send a signal to the people of Northern Ireland that those organisations are not committed to exclusively peaceful means—otherwise, why would they hold on to the weapons?—and the threat of violence will remain.
          The threat of violence is as potent as actual violence in its influence over the democratic and political process in Northern Ireland. That is why the republican movement in particular will continue to use the threat of violence within the assembly and the Executive to further its political agenda.
          It is up to members of the republican movement to prove that I am wrong. The most tangible evidence that they can provide to me and the people I represent is to decommission their weapons. The people I represent have been on the receiving end of IRA violence, and they need to know that it has given up violence for good. Without decommissioning, they will not be convinced.
          Mr. William Ross: Are not my hon. Friend's concerns increased by the fact that some of those who have left the Provisional IRA and have gone to the new terrorist bodies are reputed to be those who had control of the weapons—the adjutants? The people who know where the weapons are have control of them, and they can pass them on to their new companions at any time, should they so desire.
          7.15 pm
          Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a well-established fact that one of the leading members of the new organisation called the Real IRA, which is linked to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee, is the former quartermaster of the Provisional IRA. He has access to and knowledge of the whereabouts of these illegal weapons. Substantial evidence suggests that some of the weaponry already being used by that group, including Semtex explosives and mortars used in recent attacks, came from the IRA's arsenal of weaponry. That cannot be ignored.

          71
          Decommissioning is important. From a political perspective, if terrorist organisations are to benefit from the agreement by the release of their prisoners, why should we not require them to deliver real peace through an end to violence and the decommissioning of their weapons? If we say to them, "Here are the benefits, but we do not actually require you to deliver your side of the bargain," they will not deliver their side of the bargain, and the weapons will remain in their hands.
          Amendment No. 77 refers to the proscription of terrorist organisations. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
          "This legislation will not remove the ban on organisations that are proscribed under our anti-terrorist laws. The IRA or UDA, for example, will continue to be proscribed, and membership of such organisations will continue to be a criminal offence."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1087.]
          I see no difficulty in the Government accepting amendment No. 77, which states:
          "The fact that an organisation which is a proscribed organisation under either the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 is not specified as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this Act does not affect its status as a proscribed organisation under those Acts."
          If the Government fail to accept the amendment, many people will wonder why they are not prepared to make explicit in the Bill that which the Secretary of State has already declared in the House.
          Such declarations in the past have, in the fulness of time, been found wanting. I hope that the Government will accept my amendment, so that it is clear from the legislation that she means what she says. Organisations that are proscribed under the other legislation to which I have referred should not be removed from the list of proscribed organisations simply as a result of the provisions of this Bill as it stands.
          I also hope that the Government will accept amendments that seek to strengthen the link between the need for actual and on-going decommissioning, and the release of prisoners.
          Marjorie Mowlam: We have had a wide-ranging debate. I shall begin by responding to what the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in his opening remarks. He suggested that the Prime Minister had fudged his commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. I should like to put on record the fact that I consider that to be untrue and unfair to the Prime Minister, especially in view of the lengths to which he has gone in Northern Ireland and in the Bill to set out the position clearly.
          The Prime Minister set out his position in full in his speech in Belfast on 14 May during the referendum campaign. He said:
          "In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account."
          Those words were subsequently used in the Bill. It is therefore entirely wrong to say that requiring those matters to be taken into account constitutes a fudge of the Prime Minister's commitment.
          Mr. Grieve: Will the Secretary of State give way?
          Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry, but I will not. I have given away all the available time, so that as many hon. Members as possible could speak.
          72
          In the House on 6 May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that he agreed with the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that the Secretary of State was
          "bound to have regard as to whether decommissioning has taken place."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
          The Prime Minister agreed with that, and so do I. It is reflected in the Bill, which requires me to take into account whether an organisation is "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning commission.
          Let me deal with two matters that were mentioned in some shape or form by every speaker. The first is whether and how we can tie down in the Bill the interlocking nature of the Good Friday agreement—the links involved in it—and the second is how that relates to decommissioning. I hope that, in the nine minutes that I have left, I can respond to all who raised that issue.
          As it stands, the agreement recognises a number of explicit links. For example, the participants agreed that
          "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements."
          That link is fully reflected in clause 3; but it is also true to say that underlying those explicit links are deeper and more fundamental understandings.
          The Government are in no doubt that a fundamental element of those underlying understandings is that those who seek to benefit from the agreement can do so only on the basis of a genuine and unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful means, now and in the future. That is fundamental. Without it—or if there were any suggestion that it was not being followed in practice—a key foundation of the agreement would be fatally undermined.
          The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) expressed that clearly when he said on Second Reading, speaking of arrangements for prisoner releases:
          "People would not find this concept acceptable unless they knew that, as a result of the agreement as a whole, there was to be a genuine ending of violence and a genuine peace. What might be tolerable in the context of a genuine and permanent end to violence would not be tolerable otherwise."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c.1097.]
          My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the same in Belfast on 14 May. He said:
          "I believe that most people will be ready to accept even the hardest parts if they had genuine confidence that the paramilitaries were really ready to give up violence for good."
          The Government have taken care to ensure in the Bill that, when that fundamental commitment is called seriously into doubt, we can act to stop prisoner releases. I can suspend the scheme as a whole; I can exclude specific organisations from benefiting from it; I can vary the two-year point set as the target for completion of all releases. I assure the Committee that I will not hesitate to use those powers if the foundation of the agreement—an end, now and in the future, to violence, and a commitment, now and in the future, to exclusively peaceful means—appears to have been set aside. As the Prime Minister said—and meant it—
          "There can be no fudge between democracy and terror."
          There is, however, another fundamental foundation to the agreement, which we must also take care to preserve. Where violence has been genuinely brought to an end, and where there is a genuine and unequivocal commitment to

          73
          the use of exclusively peaceful means now and in the future, the way is open for those previously committed to violence to benefit from the terms of the agreement, without new preconditions or barriers being set up in their path other than those clearly stated in the agreement itself.
          As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech in Belfast—which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said had a crucial effect on public opinion—
          "We are not setting new preconditions or barriers. On the contrary, we want as many people as possible to use the Agreement as their bridge across to an exclusively democratic path. We will encourage them to take this path."
          Were we to write into the Bill preconditions, barriers, tests or links—however desirable they may be—if they were not in the agreement, we would ourselves be departing from it. We would then lose all moral authority to hold other participants fully to the commitments into which they have entered.
          In all this, the key is confidence: confidence on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland that the terms and spirit of the agreement are being adhered to by everyone involved. If that confidence is fundamentally undermined, conditions will not exist in which prisoners can be released, or continue to be released. We shall use the powers available to us in the Bill accordingly.
          The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) raised some specific points. Clause 3(9) does not contain an exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account; other factors can and will be taken into account if they are relevant. Any coercive fund raising would in any event give rise to issues relating to acts of violence. Fund raising may well constitute a part of acts of preparation for violence, which are referred to in clause 3(9)(b).
          Along with others, the hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by "co-operating fully" with the independent commission on decommissioning. The answer is simple. On 14 May, the Prime Minister referred to
          "full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the provisions in the Agreement."
          What we are looking for is full co-operation as a part of the implementation of these factors.
          The gist of amendment No. 1 requires me to designate organisations that benefit, rather than excluding those that are not to benefit. The latter, not the former, is required in the agreement. The amendment also adds to the test in the agreement a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, with five separate tests, each of which must be passed. That is not consistent with the agreement or with the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral, which set out four factors that were to be taken into account in the reaching of an overall judgment. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
          Let me add a footnote on amendment No. 21. I should like the opportunity to consider the issue further, and to consider whether the language of clause 3(9)(d) could be adjusted to make the point clear beyond reasonable doubt.
          We are not debating these issues in a vacuum. It is not as if the Government had produced the Bill out of the blue. The issues concern the parties and people of Northern Ireland intimately. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made clear, it is they who have decided, for the first time, in negotiations in Belfast, a point of view that has now been endorsed in the referendum.
          74
          I say that to emphasise the fact that, if there is a difference between us in the Committee, it is not over the importance of the issues that we are debating or the concerns to which they give rise, which are understandable and shared by all of us. The difference is this: we do not believe that it would be right to overrule by our actions here what has been agreed by the parties in Northern Ireland, and endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland. We are determined to hold every participant to the commitments that they made in reaching that agreement. The Government are no less determined to implement what has been agreed by the parties and endorsed by the people.
          7.30 pm
          Mr. MacKay: The Secretary of State has attempted to say that the editorial in The Times and I were wrong to suggest that the Prime Minister has fudged his commitments. I again refer the right hon. Lady to what the Prime Minister's said last month at Prime Minister's Question Time:
          "It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that,".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
          That is not included in the legislation. It will be included only if our amendment is accepted. I commend it to the Committee.
          Question put, That the amendment be made:—
          The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 274.

          Division No.301]

          [7.30 pm

          AYES

          Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

          Forth, Rt Hon Eric

          Amess, David

          Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

          Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

          Fraser, Christopher

          Arbuthnot, James

          Gale, Roger

          Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

          Garnier, Edward

          Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

          Gibb, Nick

          Baldry, Tony

          Gill, Christopher

          Bercow, John

          Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

          Blunt, Crispin

          Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

          Boswell, Tim

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Bottomley, peter (Worthing W)

          Green, Damian

          Brady, Graham

          Greenway, John

          Brazier, Julian

          Grieve, Dominic

          Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

          Hague, Rt Hon William

          Browning, Mrs Angela

          Hammond, Philip

          Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

          Hawkins, Nick

          Burns, Simon

          Hayes, John

          Butterfill, John

          Heald, Oliver

          Cash, William

          Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

          Chapman, Sir Sydney

          Horam, John

          (Chipping Barnet)

          Howard, Rt Hon Michael

          Chope, Christopher

          Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

          Clappison, James

          Hunter, Andrew

          Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

          Jack, Rt Hon Michael

          (Rushcliffe)

          Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

          Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

          Jenkin, Bernard

          Colvin, Michael

          Johnson Smith,

          Cran, James

          Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

          Key, Robert

          Day, Stephen

          King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

          Donaldson, Jeffrey

          Kirkbride, Miss Julie

          Duncan, Alan

          Laing, Mrs Eleanor

          Duncan Smith, Iain

          Lait, Mrs Jacqui

          Faber, David

          Lansley, Andrew

          Fabricant, Michael

          Leigh, Edward

          Fallon, Michael

          Letwin, Oliver

          Flight, Howard

          Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

          75

          Lidington, David

          Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

          Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

          Shepherd, Richard

          Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

          Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

          Loughton, Tim

          Spelman, Mrs Caroline

          Luff, Peter

          Spicer, Sir Michael

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Spring, Richard

          MacKay, Andrew

          Streeter, Gary

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Swayne, Desmond

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

          Madel, Sir David

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          Malins, Humfrey

          Thompson, William

          Maples, John

          Tredinnick, David

          Mates, Michael

          Trend, Michael

          Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

          Tyrie, Andrew

          May, Mrs Theresa

          Viggers, Peter

          Moss, Malcolm

          Wardle, Charles

          Nicholls, Patrick

          Waterson, Nigel

          Norman, Archie

          Wells, Bowen

          Ottaway, Richard

          Whittingdale, John

          Page, Richard

          Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

          Paice, James

          Willetts, David

          Pickles, Eric

          Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

          Prior, David

          Woodward, Shaun

          Randall, John

          Yeo, Tim

          Redwood, Rt Hon John

          Young, Rt Hon Sir George

          Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

          Ross, William (E Lond'y)

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Ruffley, David

          Mr. John M. Taylor and

          Sayeed, Jonathan

          Mr. Tim Collins.

          NOES

          Ainger, Nick

          Chisholm, Malcolm

          Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

          Church, Ms Judith

          Alexander, Douglas

          Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

          Allan, Richard

          Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

          Allen, Graham

          Clelland, David

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Clwyd, Ann

          Ashton, Joe

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          Ballard, Jackie

          Coleman, Iain

          Barron, Kevin

          Colman, Tony

          Bayley, Hugh

          Cooper, Yvette

          Beard, Nigel

          Corbett, Robin

          Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Beith, Rt Hon A J

          Cotter, Brain

          Bell, Martin (Tatton)

          Cousins, Jim

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Cox, Tom

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Crausby, David

          Best, Harold

          Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

          Blears, Ms Hazel

          Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

          Boateng, paul

          Cummings, John

          Borrow, David

          Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

          Bradley, Keith (Withington)

          Darvill, Keith

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

          Brake, Tom

          Dismore, Andrew

          Brinton, Mrs Helen

          Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

          Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

          Doran, Frank

          Browne, Desmond

          Dowd, Jim

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Drew, David

          Buck, Ms Karen

          Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

          Burden, Richard

          Edwards, Huw

          Burgon, Colin

          Efford, Clive

          Burstow, Paul

          Ellman, Mrs Louise

          Butler, Mrs Christine

          Fatchett, Derek

          Byers, Stephen

          Fearn, Ronnie

          Cable, Dr Vincent

          Field, Rt Hon Frank

          Caborn, Ricahrd

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

          Fitzsimons, Lorna

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Flynn, Paul

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          Follett, Barbara

          Canavan, Dennis

          Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

          Casale, Roger

          Fyfe, Maria

          Caton, Martin

          Galloway, Geroge

          Cawsey, Ian

          Gapes, Mike

          Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

          Gardiner, Barry

          Chaytor, David

          George, Andrew (St Ives)

          Chidgey, David

          George, Bruce (Walsall S)

          76

          Gerrard, Neil

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Gibson, Dr Ian

          Mallaber, Judy

          Godsiff, Roger

          Mandelson, peter

          Goggins, Paul

          Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

          Gordon, Mrs Eileen

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Gorrie, Donald

          Marshall-Andrews, Robert

          Grant, Bernie

          Martlew, Eric

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          Maxton, John

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Meale, Alan

          Grogan, John

          Merron, Gillian

          Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

          Michael, Alun

          Hancock, Mike

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

          Hanson, David

          Milburn, Alan

          Harries, Dr Evan

          Miller, Andrew

          Harvey, Nick

          Mitchell, Austin

          Healey, John

          Moffatt, Laura

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Heppell, John

          Moran, Mrs Margaret

          Hesford, Stephen

          Morley, Elliot

          Hewitt, Ms Patricia

          Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

          Hoon, Geoffrey

          Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

          Hope, Phil

          Mudie, George

          Hopkins, Kelvin

          Mullin, Chris

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          Howells, Dr Kim

          Norris, Dan

          Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

          O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

          Olner, Bill

          Humble, Mrs, Joan

          Organ, Mrs Diana

          Hurst, Alan

          Osborne, Ms Sandra

          Hutton, John

          Pearson, Ian

          Iddon, Dr Brain

          Perham, Ms Linda

          Ingram, Adam

          Pickthall, Colin

          Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

          Pike, Peter L

          Jackson, Helen (Hillsborugh)

          Plaskitt, James

          Jenkins, Brain

          Pollard, Kerry

          Johnson, Miss Melanie

          Pope, Gerg

          (Welwyn Hatfield)

          pound, Stephen

          Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

          Powell, Sir Raymond

          Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

          Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

          Jones, Ieaun Wyn (Ynys Môn)

          Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

          Radice, Giles

          Jowell, Ms Tessa

          Raynsford, Nick

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

          Keeble, Ms Sally

          Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N )

          Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

          Rendel, David

          Kemp, Fraser

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

          Rooker, Jeff

          Khabra, Piara S

          Rooney, Terry

          King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

          Roy, Frank

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

          Ruane, Chris

          Kingham, Ms Tess

          Ruddock, Ms Joan

          Ladyman, Dr Stephen

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          Lawrence, Ms Jackie

          Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

          Leslie, Christopher

          Salter, Martin

          Linton, Martin

          Sanders, Adrain

          Liningstone, Ken

          Savidge, Malcolm

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Sedgemore, Brain

          Lock, David

          Sheerman, Barry

          Love, Andrew

          Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

          McAllion, John

          Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Skinner, Dennis

          McCafferty, Ms Chris

          Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

          McCartney, Ian (Markerfield)

          Smith, Angela (Basildon)

          Mc Donnell, John

          Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

          McFall, John

          Smith, John (Glamorgan

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

          McIsaac, Shona

          Soley, Clive

          McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

          Southworth, Ms Helen

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Squire, Ms Rachel

          McNamara, Kevin

          Starkey, Dr Phyllis

          McNulty, Tony

          Stewart, David (Inverness E)

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          McWilliam, John

          Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

          77

          Stuart, Ms Gisela

          Wareing, Robert N

          Stunell, Andrew

          Watts, David

          Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

          White, Brain

          (Dewsbury)

          Whitehead, Dr Alan

          Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          (Swansea W)

          Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

          Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

          Tipping, Paddy

          Willis, Phil

          Todd, Mark

          Wills, Michael

          Tonge, Dr Jenny

          Winnick, David

          Touhig, Don

          Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

          Truswell, Paul

          Woolas, Phil

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

          Twigg, Derek (Halton)

          Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

          Tyler, Paul

          Wyatt, Derek

          Vaz, Keith

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Walley, Ms Joan

          Janet Anderson and

          Ward, Ms Claire

          Mr. David Jamieson

          Question accordingly negatived.
          7.45 pm
          Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 47, at end insert—
          '(11) The Secretary of State shall in particular review the list of organisations specified under this section after 22 May 2000 in the light of the reports of any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997.'.
          We have had modest, rather than good, success with the Government today. I appreciated the Minister of State agreeing to one of our amendments earlier and was disappointed that the Secretary of State was unable to accept our more substantive amendment a moment ago. I hope that we will at least get two out of three.
          Let me explain why the amendment is important. There are some happy coincidences in respect of two-year limits. The agreement specifies that all decommissioning of arms and explosives should occur within two years. Equally, the Bill allows prisoners who are not otherwise released to be released two years after the Bill becomes law. I need hardly say that nearly all those prisoners will be the most dangerous and hardened, who have committed the worst offences. Principally, they will be lifers—those whom all reasonable people in both communities will feel most uncomfortable about releasing back into society.
          We support the Bill overall, but we believe that it is fatally flawed without amendment No. 1. The agreement specifies that all prisoners will be released after two years. That is fair enough, but the least the Secretary of State can do is to ask the decommissioning commission to give a report after 22 May 2000, after the two years stated in the agreement are up. One would hope that the commission would say that everything had occurred as it should have done under the agreement, that the relevant paramilitary organisations had complied with the amendment, and that the arms and explosives had been decommissioned. There would then be no good reason not to let out these hardened and brutal murderers. However, if the report said that decommissioning had not been fully complied with, it would be correct, under the legislation as amended, for the Secretary of State not to let them out. The best chance to get complete decommissioning of arms and explosives, which both I and the Secretary of State want, is to say that the remaining hardened prisoners will not be let out of gaol until final decommissioning has occurred.
          78
          In the previous debate, we wrangled about when decommissioning was taking place, when it started and whether prisoners should be let out early. Hon. Members on both sides of the argument legitimately expressed concern that it would be imprecise. That is as may be, but there is nothing imprecise about the remaining prisoners. The agreement states categorically that all decommissioning of arms and explosives should be concluded by 22 May 2000.
          I should think that the Bill will not become law until next month. Two years from that date, the remaining prisoners will be released. Therefore, the Secretary of State, or her successor, will have ample opportunity between 22 May 2000 and the date in July 2000 to determine whether the decommissioning requirement has been complied with. If it has not, those hardened prisoners should not be released.
          I commend amendment No. 5 to the Committee.
          Marjorie Mowlam: Amendment No. 5 would require me to do what I shall already be doing under clause 3(10). As hon. Members will know—as I stated in our previous debate—I am very sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. However, the matter is dealt with already by clause 3(10), which I shall resist being duplicated.
          Clause 3(10) owes a great deal to helpful suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). The list of designated terrorist organisations that cannot benefit under the Bill is not a once-and-for-all list. Organisations can move on to and off the list, which must be kept under review at all times.
          Clause 3(10) helpfully makes explicit the need for constant review. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann for suggesting that any misunderstanding would be avoided if the Bill contained the requirement for regular reviews. I intend to keep the list under regular review throughout the agreement's implementation—including both before and after 22 May 2000, which is the second anniversary of the referendums. Moreover, clause 3(10) already requires me to do so. To that extent, amendment No. 5 unnecessarily duplicates the clause.
          We have always said that crucial to successful implementation of the agreement is confidence that all parts of it are implemented. If there is no progress on one part of the agreement, implementation of it all will be put at risk.
          All supporters of the agreement are committed by the agreement to total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They are committed also to using any influence that they have to achieving decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by 22 May 2000.
          Mr. William Thompson: Does the Secretary of State mean that the provision will operate in the same way in which it operated during the talks? Does she mean that terrorist organisations will be able to commit an offence, be taken off the list for a short time, and—once they say that they have returned to a ceasefire—again be included in the list? Surely such a situation is unacceptable.
          Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He should remember that the Prime Minister clearly stated—I have supported the statement many times

          79
          in the House—that the criteria will become more rigorous as the two years pass. Therefore, as time goes by—regardless of whether something may have been agreeable initially—if an organisation is asked to leave, it will become increasingly difficult for it to return. We have already made serious commitments in the Bill, which we expect to be fulfilled—just as we are fulfilling other commitments.
          I do not think that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I disagree fundamentally on the matter. I ask him to understand that the Bill already gives me wide powers to suspend the scheme, to exclude specific organisations and to vary the two-year cut-off point. If confidence that the whole agreement is being implemented is missing—whether because of a failure in decommissioning or because of a failure in another fundamental commitment—the Government have powers to stop the prisoner arrangements. We shall use those powers if circumstances—specifically the need for confidence—warrant it.
          Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying how she will approach the release of prisoners and, specifically, the matter of the list of organisations. However, notwithstanding her comments, it is difficult to determine how insertion in the Bill of amendment No. 5 would negate what she is attempting to achieve elsewhere in the Bill.
          Marjorie Mowlam: The amendment duplicates the clause. It is repetitious.
          Mr. Grieve: Although I hear the Secretary of State say "duplication", I think that duplication may sometimes serve a purpose—which, in this case, undoubtedly is reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was trying to express the anxiety that people feel. I certainly endorse his belief that there is such anxiety. People are anxious that, the further down the road we go—the closer we get to the date on which it is likely that the terrorists who have been convicted of the most unpleasant offences will be due for release—the greater the temptation will be for the decommissioning issue to be pushed entirely out of the picture.
          The anxiety has been reinforced by the difficulties that the Government seem to be having over the clear and explicit comments that the Prime Minister made before the referendum. Although I am mindful of the fact that the Government face an extremely difficult task in that matter, and that words and semantics sometimes can be unhelpful, there is, nevertheless, an anxiety.
          What seemed, before the referendum, to be clear and explicit assurances, which I think were wholly reconcilable with a proper and legal interpretation of the agreement, seem now to have been subtly moved away from because of an anxiety which—although I am not quite sure where it lies—may be based on a desire not to offend other parties to the agreement. Perhaps that is why the Ulster Unionists have been so upset by the change, and why further reassurance in any form—even if it is not in the form of amendment No. 1—would be welcomed.
          80
          I do not want to labour the point or to take up the time of the Committee. Nevertheless, including as an explicit part of the legislation a requirement to review after 22 May 2000 the list of organisations would seem to go some way towards dealing with the anxiety.
          Mr. Hunter: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend does not want to detain the Committee. However, I invite him to make more of the point that clause 3(10), which states that
          "The Secretary of State shall from time to time review the list of organisations",
          is not duplicated by amendment No. 5. Nor does the Bill reflect the Prime Minister's words that urgency will increase as time passes. Therefore, amendment No. 5 is valid, and the Secretary of State's comments were inappropriate.
          Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and do not disagree with a single word that he said. Perhaps I was making too great a concession by saying that the amendment duplicates the clause.
          I suppose that, as a lawyer, I am aware that documents such as the agreement can be read in different ways. I am aware also that it is possible to express in a Bill the same purpose—how to achieve the same end—in different ways. I therefore always try to listen carefully to the comments of the Secretary of State and the Minister when they explain to the Committee what they are trying to achieve. I am extremely mindful of the difficulties that they face on those points.
          I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that it would certainly be more explicit to include in the Bill the specific reassurance that, after 22 May 2000, the list of specified organisations will be reviewed. I do not think that such a provision would be an unnecessary duplication. However, as I said, in so far as it is a duplication, it is a reassurance—which, in the context within which we are operating, would be particularly available.
          As I said, I will not labour the point or take up any more of the Committee's time, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give the matter serious consideration, The amendment can be included in the Bill without adversely affecting other matters about which I appreciate she is anxious, and its inclusion would go some way toward providing an important reassurance that the list of organisations will be reviewed in the light of the conditions that prevail after 22 May 2000.
          8 pm
          Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully support amendment No. 5, which was moved so succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who speaks on Northern Ireland affairs for the Opposition.
          I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: if the Prime Minister felt it necessary to give verbal assurances during the referendum campaign in Northern Ireland to persuade a majority of the people, and certainly large numbers of Unionists, to support a yes vote, and went out on a limb on several issues to get a yes vote of a size that would justify proceeding with the Good Friday agreement, why will the Secretary of State not include the

          81
          amendment in the legislation on the same ground—that it would give some reassurance to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland that she is sincere?
          The Bill gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to review the list "from time to time", but how she will review it is very much—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), is commenting quietly and courteously from a sedentary position.
          Mr. Grieve: That is unlike him.
          Mr. Winterton: No; I have known the Minister for some time and he has always been most courteous.
          I feel strongly about this issue. The Opposition have sought to support the Government, but I must establish my position very clearly. Had I been a voter in Northern Ireland, I should have voted no in the referendum. The Secretary of State and her Ministers know that I was one of three Conservative and Unionist Members of Parliament who voted against Second Reading of the Bill, so my principled opposition to it is established. However, the Bill received a Second Reading with a substantial majority, so I see it as my duty to try to improve the Bill.
          The Prime Minister felt it necessary to give additional reassurances to the loyalist Unionist people of Northern Ireland. By the way, that transcends the religious divide—there are many Catholics who are Unionists. They would be reassured if the Secretary of State would accept this rational amendment for the very reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and for the even more moderate reasons proposed my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is a practising barrister. The amendment would provide the reassurances that I believe the people of Northern Ireland justly require from the Secretary of State because of the huge powers that the Bill gives her and because of the element of discretion involved.
          The House likes the Secretary of State. She has sought to do an excellent job, and a very difficult one. The fact that I disagree with much of what she has done is irrelevant at this stage. My position on Northern Ireland was established way back in 1971–72, so I speak from a position of some commitment to the Unionist people and to peace in Northern Ireland. I plead with the Secretary of State to make this one modest concession, even if she and the Government consider it to be a duplication of what she believes is already part of the legislation.
          Mr. Thompson: I support the amendment because it was tabled by the Opposition, and I appreciate the Opposition's attempt to clarify and strengthen the Bill. Unfortunately, that attempt has been rejected by the Government.
          I am not sure that the amendment will be all that effective, however. As I understand it, under the agreement, prisoners will be released in two years' time. I suspect that they will be out in two years because an agreement has been made and signed by all the participants, and I assure the Committee that Sinn Fein and the IRA expect the Government and all the participants in the agreement to fulfil that agreement. They will expect their prisoners to be out by 22 May 2000, irrespective of the terrible crimes that they have
          82
          committed. I have lived in Northern Ireland and seen Governments operating for long enough to know that those prisoners probably will be out.
          Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify for me how she would be able to include the IRA on the list. We are told that organisations on the list will have to have established and have to be maintaining
          "a complete and unequivocal ceasefire."
          My understanding is that the IRA ceasefire is a four-month renewable ceasefire. Does that qualify in the mind of the Secretary of State? It certainly would not qualify in mine.
          The IRA has said that it will reconsider the position in four months' time. If it is satisfied with the political progress, it will renew its ceasefire. In other words, the ceasefire is on a four-month, renewable basis. That can hardly accord with the provisions of the Bill.
          I am somewhat concerned about what the Secretary of State said about organisations that are on the list and which then move off it but which may then be able to move back on to it. That seems to be a replica of what happened under the Mitchell principles. When the talks were taking place, the organisations were supposed to have committed themselves fully to peaceful means. When it was discovered that they were murdering people, they were put out of the talks for a few weeks to do penance; then they were brought back in as repentant, reformed groups. Such a situation, which was implied in the Secretary of State's words this evening, is completely unacceptable.
          If organisations get on the list and then sin, they should be removed from the list, and it should be made clear that they will never be allowed back on. We cannot allow organisations to be put on the list, taken off for a short time until they have mended their ways—or appear to have done so—and then allowed back on. We need some reassurance from the Secretary of State that that will not happen.
          Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend—I should like to call him that—believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will ever decommission a majority of its weaponry? Is that likely to happen before 22 May 2000? Under the Mitchell principles, we were told that there would be no discussion until decommissioning had taken place, but the goalposts were shifted. Will the same happen now?
          Mr. Thompson: I do not believe for a moment that Sinn Fein-IRA have the slightest intention of ever decommissioning. Their power lies not in their votes, but in their guns—and not necessarily in the use of those guns but in the equally potent threat that they will be used. They have clearly said that they will not decommission, because the moment they do so, they will lose their power.
          Sinn Fein is the most powerful party in Northern Ireland. Every word that Sinn Fein members speak is recorded. The Government take note of everything that they say. We are told that they have direct telephone communication with the Secretary of State. We are told that when they are stopped on the road by the security forces they can ring up and get clearance so that the security forces allow them to go on. I do not believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will give up their guns, because they would lose their power and their influence.

          83
          However, we are told that Sinn Fein-IRA will give up their guns. People seem to think that they will, although I do not believe it. Let us give them the chance in the Bill, but let us do all that we can to strengthen it so that they will be able to decommission if they ever intend to do so. I do not believe that they will, because their power lies in their guns and they will not give them up.
          Mr. Hunter: The provisional selection of amendments conveniently gives this debate the title "Review of lists of terrorist organisations". Of direct relevance to the amendment and the clause is a point that featured at least twice on Second Reading. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to refer to it in some detail if she replies.
          The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) talked in detail about the potential conflict between the workings of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and this aspect of the Bill. He envisaged circumstances in which there could be a contradiction of interests; with the application of different criteria, an organisation that would remain proscribed under the PTA would be deemed non-terrorist under the Bill.
          The Minister has not fully addressed the issue. I accept that there is not much time, but it is directly relevant to the amendment. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consider making some comment.
          Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. To answer the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), I have made it clear this evening and before that the tests will become more rigorous over time. That is the important fact to remember. The agreement will not work unless there is confidence that all the different elements are working. A continuing review process is built in if any element is not working. We have made it clear that we shall support parties that complain and ask for a review, because we want to ensure that all elements of the agreement work. If any element is not working, the agreement will not work. It is crucial that all the parts work together.
          The hon. Member for West Tyrone referred to me talking to Members of Parliament. I talk to all Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has not phoned me or asked me to call him. I have talked to every Member of Parliament who has asked me and I shall continue to do so.
          We have had helpful contributions in the spirit of what we are trying to do from some Conservative Members, even though the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) disagrees fundamentally with what is going on. The contribution of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) matches that of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) earlier. Both have serious questions about whether the agreement will work, but, because the consent of the people of Northern Ireland has been demonstrated, they are willing to work to move the process forward.
          8.15 pm
          The hon. Members for Macclesfield and for Beaconsfield asked for further reassurance. I want to offer
          84
          what reassurance I can to all the people of Northern Ireland. I would not like the hon. Gentlemen to think that the Bill will go through without such reassurances being offered. I should like to put on record again the fact that no supporter of a terrorist organisation will be released. The four factors mentioned by the Prime Minister are reproduced in the Bill. The situation will be kept under regular review and the two-year cut-off can be increased. I will have other powers, including the power to suspend the agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen recognise that those substantial safeguards and reassurances are in the Bill. Subsection (10) deals with the important points.
          Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the reasonable way in which she is responding to the concerns of those of us who want additional reassurances in the Bill. She has talked about suspending the agreement. This might be a hypothetical question, but if the circumstances were such that it was justified to pull the rug on the agreement would the Secretary of State have the courage and determination to do so, even though she would not want to? That is a leading question and a difficult one, but it is critical. Would she have the courage and determination to do what was right if the agreement was being fundamentally abused by one of the parties?
          Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman has asked for additional reassurances. The reassurances that the Prime Minister gave in the Balmoral speech on 14 May are in the Bill. Many people asked us to put them in, and we have done so. There is a clear provision for suspension of the scheme for those who are not signed up to an unequivocal, permanent commitment to a ceasefire.
          Such questions always lead to headlines about the suspension of the legislation—although I see that most of the press have gone to dinner. We must build confidence to ensure that if everybody works on all the parts of the agreement, we have a chance of making it work. If we look for negatives, we shall certainly find them. We must look for the positives and work forward. As I have made clear in other speeches, if there are difficult judgments to make, I shall make them. Who got Sinn Fein out of the talks? Who made sure that the Ulster Democratic party was out of the talks? That shows our commitment to taking difficult decisions.
          Mr. Grieve: Does the Secretary of State agree that one virtue of having a review on a fixed date, such as 22 May 2000 is that, in the past, deadlines have appeared to concentrate minds wonderfully? Indeed, it could be argued that there would not have been an agreement had there not been the deadline that it had to be achieved by Easter. One advantage of a deadline is that it will concentrate the minds of paramilitary organisations which may be a bit sluggish or have internal difficulties about decommissioning because of the consequences to them of not meeting that deadline.
          Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that deadlines make a difference, but we are now in a materially different position. We now have an agreement in which all the parties in Northern Ireland have participated, and 71 per cent. of the people consent to its basic principle. It is important to recognise that nothing will be possible in the months and years ahead

          85
          unless confidence is built. We can put in place structures and plans, but they can work only if confidence is built by the people of Northern Ireland and the parties that are represented here.
          We can talk dates and structures. As I said earlier, clause 3(10) offers reassurance on the face of the Bill. As a lawyer, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield understands that duplication is not necessarily desirable. I have offered reassurances in the Committee this evening and I do so again now. We have powers to revoke licences and to suspend the scheme, and we will use those powers if there is a breakdown in the unequivocal commitment to the ceasefire. The factors that put meat on the bones of the agreement are there, but it is up to the parties to make the agreement work; if they do not do so, it will not work, regardless of what we do.
          Mr. MacKay: I agree with the Secretary of State that there is not huge disagreement between us on amendment No. 5—unlike on the previous group of amendments, which we tabled because we continue to believe that the promises and assurances given by the Prime Minister have not been incorporated into the legislation and that the people of Northern Ireland have been badly let down. However, that is a matter for Third Reading, so I shall not stretch your patience, Mr. Martin. Instead I shall address amendment No. 5.
          My hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) have made it clear to the Secretary of State that there are two reasons why we consider the amendment to be worth while and rather important. First, it is a confidence-building measure and, secondly, we do not accept the right hon. Lady's conclusion that it merely repeats what is in clause 3(10). We support subsection (10), but the additional subsection (11) is important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, it would concentrate minds on the due date.
          It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that what really matters is the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Of course she is right, but she also knows that minds need to be concentrated. It would concentrate minds hugely if the matter were so clearly stated that those whom I would describe as the remainder prisoners—those who are not due out until two years after the coming into force of the legislation—knew that they would not be released at all if the paramilitaries with whom they associated had not decommissioned.
          Everyone agrees that decommissioning of arms and explosives will be difficult to achieve. The one possibility of achieving it—which the Secretary of State and I passionately want and which we know Northern Ireland needs—is to make the clause sufficiently clear to ensure that paramilitary organisations know that their boys in prison for longer sentences will not get out in two years' time if they have not decommissioned, and that the Secretary of State will be reviewing the matter.
          I urge the Secretary of State to accept the amendment. Nothing that she has said shows that she fundamentally disagrees with it. It would be extremely helpful and would encourage decommissioning, which is precisely what she passionately wants. I urge the Committee to support the amendment.
          Question put, That the amendment be made:—
          The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 278.

          Division No. 302]

          [8.24 pm

          AYES

          Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

          Laing, Mrs Eleanor

          Amess, David

          Lait, Mrs Jacqui

          Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

          Lansley, Andrew

          Arbuthnot, James

          Leigh, Edward

          Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

          Letwin, Oliver

          Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

          Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

          Bercow, John

          Lidington, David

          Blunt, Crispin

          Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

          Boswell, Tim

          Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

          Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

          Loughton, Tim

          Brady, Graham

          Luff, Peter

          Brazier, Julian

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Browning, Mrs Angela

          MacKay, Andrew

          Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Burns, Simon

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Butterfill, John

          Madel, Sir David

          Cash, William

          Malins, Humfrey

          Chapman, Sir Sydney

          Maples, John

          (Chipping Barnet)

          Mates, Michael

          Chope, Christopher

          Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

          Clappison, James

          May, Mrs Theresa

          Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

          Moss, Malcolm

          (Rushcliffe)

          Nicholls, Patrick

          Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

          Norman, Archie

          Colvin, Michael

          Ottaway, Richard

          Cran, James

          Paice, James

          Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Day, Stephen

          Pickles, Eric

          Donaldson, Jeffrey

          Prior, David

          Duncan, Alan

          Randall, John

          Duncan Smith, Iain

          Redwood, Rt Hon John

          Faber, David

          Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

          Fallon, Michael

          Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

          Flight, Howard

          Ross, William (E Lond'y)

          Forth, Rt Hon Eric

          Ruffley, David

          Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

          Sayeed, Jonathan

          Fraser, Christopher

          Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

          Gale, Roger

          Shepherd, Richard

          Garnier, Edward

          Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

          Gibb, Nick

          Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

          Gill, Christopher

          Spelman, Mrs Caroline

          Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

          Spicer, Sir Michael

          Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

          Spring, Richard

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Streeter, Gary

          Green, Damian

          Swayne, Desmond

          Greenway, John

          Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

          Grieve, Dominic

          Taylor, John M (Solihull)

          Hague, Rt Hon William

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

          Thompson, William

          Hammond, Philip

          Tredinnick, David

          Hawkins, Nick

          Trend, Michael

          Hayes, John

          Tyrie, Andrew

          Heald, Oliver

          Viggers, Peter

          Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

          Wardle, Charles

          Horam, John

          Wells, Bowen

          Howard, Rt Hon Michael

          Whittingdale, John

          Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

          Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

          Hunter, Andrew

          Willetts, David

          Jack, Rt Hon Michael

          Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

          Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

          Woodward, Shaun

          Jenkin, Bernard

          Yeo, Tim

          Johnson Smith,

          Young, Rt Hon Sir George

          Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Key, Robert

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

          Mr. Tim Collins and

          Kirkbride, Miss Julie

          Mr. Nigel Waterson.

          87

          NOES

          Ainger, Nick

          Edwards, Huw

          Alexander, Douglas

          Efford, Clive

          Allan, Richard

          Ellman, Mrs Louise

          Allen, Graham

          Fatchett, Derek

          Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

          Field, Rt Hon Frank

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          Ashton, Joe

          Fitzsimons, Lorna

          Ballard, Jackie

          Flynn, Paul

          Banks, Tony

          Follett, Barbara

          Barron, Kevin

          Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

          Bayley, Hugh

          Fyfe, Maria

          Beard, Nigel

          Galloway, George

          Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

          Gapes, Mike

          Beith, Rt Hon A J

          Gardiner, Barry

          Bell, Martin (Tatton)

          George, Andrew (St Ives)

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          George, Bruce (Walsall S)

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Gerrard, Neil

          Best, Harold

          Gibson, Dr Ian

          Blears, Ms Hazel

          Godsiff, Roger

          Boateng, Paul

          Goggins, Paul

          Borrow, David

          Gordon, Mrs Eileen

          Bradley, Keith (Withington)

          Gorrie, Donald

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Grant, Bernie

          Brake, Tom

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          Brinton, Mrs Helen

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

          Grogan, John

          Browne, Desmond

          Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Hancock, Mike

          Buck, Ms Karen

          Hanson, David

          Burden, Richard

          Harris, Dr Evan

          Burgon, Colin

          Harvey, Nick

          Burstow, Paul

          Heal, Mrs Sylvia

          Butler, Mrs Christine

          Healey, John

          Byers, Stephen

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Cable, Dr Vincent

          Heppell, John

          Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

          Hesford, Stephen

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Hewitt, Ms Patricia

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          Hoon, Geoffrey

          Canavan, Dennis

          Hope, Phil

          Casale, Roger

          Hopkins, Kelvin

          Caton, Martin

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Cawsey, Ian

          Howells, Dr Kim

          Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

          Hughes, Ms Beverley Stretford)

          Chaytor, David

          Humble, Mrs Joan

          Chidgey, David

          Hurst, Alan

          Chisholm, Malcolm

          Hutton, John

          Church, Ms Judith

          Iddon, Dr Brian

          Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

          Ingram, Adam

          Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

          Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

          Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

          Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

          Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

          Jamieson, David

          Clelland, David

          Jenkins, Brian

          Clwyd, Ann

          Johnson, Miss Melanie

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          (Welwyn Hatfield)

          Coleman, Iain

          Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

          Colman, Tony

          Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

          Cooper, Yvette

          Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

          Corbett, Robin

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

          Cotter, Brian

          Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

          Cousins, Jim

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Cox, Tom

          Keeble, Ms Sally

          Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

          Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

          Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

          Kemp, Fraser

          Cummings, John

          Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

          Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

          Khabra, Piara S

          Darvill, Keith

          King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

          Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

          Kingham, Ms Tess

          Dismore, Andrew

          Ladyman, Dr Stephen

          Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

          Lawrence, Ms Jackie

          Donohoe, Brian H

          Leslie, Christopher

          Doran, Frank

          Levitt, Tom

          Dowd, Jim

          Linton, Martin

          Drew, David

          Livingstone, Ken

          88

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          Lock, David

          Rogers, Allan

          Love, Andrew

          Rooker, Jeff

          McAllion, John

          Rooney, Terry

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Roy, Frank

          McCafferty, Ms Chris

          Ruane, Chris

          McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

          Ruddock, Ms Joan

          McDonnell, John

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          McFall, John

          Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Sanders, Adrian

          McIsaac, Shona

          Savidge, Malcolm

          McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

          Sawford, Phil

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Sedgemore, Brian

          McNamara, Kevin

          Sheerman, Barry

          McNulty, Tony

          Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Skinner, Dennis

          McWilliam, John

          Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Smith, Angela (Basildon)

          Mallaber, Judy

          Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

          Mandelson, Peter

          Smith, John (Glamorgan)

          Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

          Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Soley, Clive

          Marshall-Andrews, Robert

          Southworth, Ms Helen

          Martlew, Eric

          Squire, Ms Rachel

          Maxton, John

          Starkey, Dr Phyllis

          Meale, Alan

          Stewart, David (Inverness E)

          Merron, Gillian

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          Michael, Alun

          Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

          Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

          Stuart, Ms Gisela

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

          Stunell, Andrew

          Milburn, Alan

          Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

          Miller, Andrew

          (Dewsbury)

          Mitchell, Austin

          Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

          Moffatt, Laura

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Moran, Ms Margaret

          Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

          Morley, Elliot

          Tipping, Paddy

          Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

          Todd, Mark

          Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

          Tonge, Dr Jenny

          Mudie, George

          Touhig, Don

          Mullin, Chris

          Truswell, Paul

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Norris, Dan

          Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          Twigg, Derek (Halton)

          O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

          Tyler, Paul

          Olner, Bill

          Walley, Ms Joan

          Organ, Mrs Diana

          Ward, Ms Claire

          Osborne, Ms Sandra

          Wareing, Robert N

          Pearson, Ian

          Watts, David

          Perham, Ms Linda

          White, Brian

          Pickthall, Colin

          Whitehead, Dr Alan

          Pike, Peter L

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Plaskitt, James

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Pollard, Kerry

          (Swansea W)

          Pond, Chris

          Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

          Pope, Greg

          Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

          Pound, Stephen

          Willis, Phil

          Powell, Sir Raymond

          Wills, Michael

          Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

          Winnick, David

          Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

          Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Woolas, phil

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

          Radice, Giles

          Wyatt, Derek

          Raynsford, Nick

          Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

          Mr. Kevin Hughes and

          Rendel, David

          Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

          Question accordingly negatived.
          Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
          Rev. Ian Paisley: I rise to oppose the Question, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Many hon. Members

          89
          will have noticed that this is the heart of the Bill, as is shown by the fact—if my counting is correct—that 52 amendments have been tabled to clause 3 and 15 amendments to the rest of the Bill.
          The controversy in the Committee between the representatives from Northern Ireland and the Government relates to pledges made and broken because they could not be delivered. The Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland because he wanted success in the referendum. He knew that the position was difficult. Like the Prime Minister, my party and others had before us the statistics from investigations in Northern Ireland carried out by spin doctors on his behalf. The Prime Minister saw that the life of the yes campaign was haemorrhaging away so he decided that something must urgently be done. He attempted to take action at Balmoral. He then wrote the graffiti on the wall and succeeded that time in getting what he wanted. Some hon. Members think that the majority of Unionists voted yes; they did not. We must wait until 25 June to find out how many people will vote for candidates who are opposed to the agreement.
          The main issue is decommissioning. I do not know why, but the Tory party has become strong on that issue. I am not convinced that it has been down any Damascus road and been converted, but, as a representative from Northern Ireland, I am amazed when the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), comes on "Good Morning Ulster" and tells of the great fight that he is putting up in the House to ensure that the pledges are fulfilled. I had a look at the amendment that the Tory party tabled and I could see in it no mention of linking decommissioning with the release of prisoners. I found it rather strange that the Tories did not attempt to write into the Bill what they claimed the Prime Minister had said. I wonder why not? I have asked them and they will not tell me.
          The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) just laughs, as he laughed when he was in Northern Ireland as a Minister. The people of my constituency are under a great obligation to him, because he gave us a hospital—the Causeway hospital—that no other Minister would have given us. I visited it just the other day, and it is going up by leaps and bounds. Some day, if the Secretary of State survives, and if I survive, we shall perhaps stand together in that hospital to see it completed—although I hope not to need a bed there. So my constituents thank the Tory Front-Bench spokesman for what he did; and although he smiles, in his heart he knows that he has made no progress today. The Government have said no to him. Will he then vote against Third Reading? That might embarrass his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)— I do not know, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
          We have already discussed these matters for a long time this evening. I do not intend to plough and harrow the field again, or to sow the corn again. Everyone knows what is at stake. The fact remains that Northern Ireland Members have no option but to vote against clause 3.
          Mr. Hunter: I share the concern of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) about clause 3. The Opposition also shared his anxieties in the shape of
          90
          amendments Nos. 1 and 5, which we pressed to a Division. I hope that, when speaking to my amendments, I did not incur the hon. Gentleman's wrath—
          Rev. Ian Paisley: Not at all.
          Mr. Hunter: That is a great relief to me—I would not survive long in a debate with the hon. Gentleman.
          I should like to raise again a point made during the debate on amendment No. 5 to which, owing to the shortage of time, the Secretary of State did not reply. The point was also raised on Second Reading. It relates to an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) expressed very clearly. There could be a conflict between the working of the PTA and the working of this Bill. The criteria in the two measures governing whether an organisation may be deemed to be a terrorist organisation are not necessarily the same. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said:
          "The Secretary of State told us that she will not be removing the IRA, the UVF and the UDA from the list of proscribed organisations because she still regards them as terrorist organisations."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1130.]
          This point, as I say, has been made several times by several hon. Members, and I would hope now for an answer to it.
          Mr. Maclean: I oppose clause 3 because the Government have not accepted any of the substantial amendments on decommissioning proposed to it. In the previous debate, the Secretary of State spoke at length about confidence measures among all parties. How can we have any such confidence when we can have no confidence in the word of the British Prime Minister, given in the House and in Northern Ireland? What he said has not materialised in the Bill.
          I was in the House when the Prime Minister made his statement on 6 May; along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, I heard what he said—it is recorded in Hansard. I do not recall any sharp intake of breath in any quarter of the House as if to say that the Prime Minister had exceeded his brief, or had rewritten the Good Friday agreement, or had overstepped the mark. Indeed, I read no editorials or other learned articles the next day suggesting that the Prime Minister had got it wrong. All the press comment was to the effect that the Prime Minister had given a sensible and perfectly valid interpretation, filling in some details of the agreement, when he agreed with the Leader of the Opposition on decommissioning a substantial number of weapons.
          What has changed in the past few weeks? Why do the Government now deny what clearly appeared to be the Prime Minister's intentions? What has changed to make the Government come up with this feeble and rather grubby line of argument? They say that adopting what the Prime Minister promised the House amounts to rewriting the agreement—that is the Government's excuse tonight. To accept any amendments, they claim, would be to rewrite the agreement.
          8.45 pm
          It was not regarded as rewriting the agreement when the Prime Minister said these things in the House and in Northern Ireland. Are we seriously being asked to believe that the notes meticulously prepared for the Prime

          91
          Minister before Question Time by the excellent civil servants in the NIO, the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister's office and possibly the Home Office did not include a line to take on the Good Friday agreement, or did not warn the Prime Minister of what it was possible to say and promise and what it was impossible to say because of the danger of Sinn Fein-IRA or other parties walking out of the talks? That would be stretching belief too far. No, the Prime Minister had a clear brief on what he could say within the spirit of the agreement that would be perfectly feasible and defensible, and which could be brought before the House in the form of enforceable legislation. He clearly had the same in mind when he made his promise at the Dispatch Box and when he toured Northern Ireland.
          Mr. Hunter: The media, especially the newspapers in Northern Ireland, unequivocally reported that the Prime Minister had made a direct link between early release and participation in the Executive. They also reported that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had said that the Prime Minister promised plain and direct legislation making the same link. The Northern Ireland Office must have been aware of the media reports, yet issued no denial.
          Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right: we all knew what was happening. Many of us took the Prime Minister at his word—although we may have learnt better now. Tonight may go down as a watershed, not as regards Northern Ireland, but as regards the Prime Minister. Even the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) knows that the Prime Minister's interpretation was within the spirit of the agreement, but his advice to his party this evening was to ignore what the Prime Minister said because it would not be helpful. I say that what the Prime Minister said was helpful, and that we are entitled to take the word of a British Prime Minister, especially when it is entirely consistent with the Good Friday agreement.
          Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not the first time a British Prime Minister has used words genuinely that have been believed by all, only to have the Northern Ireland Office turn those words around?
          Mr. Maclean: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he will have evidence for that, but not much immediately comes to mind. I suspect that, in all these things, our memories are often short-lived or highly selective. However, the memory that I am recalling tonight is that of 6 May. Ulster Unionist Members and Democratic Unionist Members will have clear memories of the Prime Minister visiting Northern Ireland, and of the reports in the Northern Ireland press.
          Again, I ask the Government to produce any information or any press reports that suggested, after the Prime Minister made speeches in Northern Ireland or a speech in the House, that he had got it wrong—that he had exceeded his brief, that he had rewritten the agreement or that he had overstepped the mark. Of course there were no such reports, not only because Government spin doctors were at work, but because most people, including Opposition Members—including me—believed that the
          92
          Prime Minister's interpretation was perfectly correct. It was perfectly correct, in the spirit of the agreement, to link the release of prisoners with substantial decommissioning. I do not recall thinking at the time, "Goodness me, he has got that wrong, but it is a jolly good thing." Of course no one thought that the Prime Minister had got it wrong; we all thought that, in interpreting the agreement, he had got it right. Tonight's tragedy is that the Government have produced a Bill that does not carry that promise into law.
          I find it extraordinary that we are in this position—a position which has undermined the Prime Minister's credibility on this issue, and may undermine his credibility on others. If we are to have peace in Northern Ireland, it must—as the Secretary of State repeatedly said—be built on confidence on all sides. How can we have confidence in the terrorist organisations concluding their part of the bargain if we cannot have confidence in the British Prime Minister honouring his?
          Marjorie Mowlam: Is the right hon. Gentleman comparing the British Prime Minister to a terrorist organisation?
          Mr. Maclean: No; the reverse. That is the point that I am making to the right hon. Lady. How can we have confidence in terrorist organisations when the word of the person whom we should have confidence in—the British Prime Minister—is not being embodied by the right hon. Lady in her legislation? She is making the opposite point to the one that I was endeavouring to make.
          I trusted the word of the Prime Minister when he gave it in the House on 6 May. Nearly everyone did so—the people of Northern Ireland, the British press and, probably, every Opposition Member. I again ask the Secretary of State and the British Government to produce evidence from the press on the following day or to produce evidence from the Northern Ireland press showing that people thought that the Prime Minister was being disingenuous when he made his comment. We all believed it to be correct. What we believed to be correct then—a correct interpretation of the agreement, and a perfectly legitimate drafting of the legislation, linking decommissioning and the release of prisoners—has not been carried into the Bill. Why?
          I ask the Government: what has changed? Is it a new threat from Sinn Fein-IRA or Ulster Defence Association terrorists? What has changed to make the Government backtrack on what the Prime Minister solemnly promised the House and the people of Northern Ireland?
          A peace deal that is built on conning the public will not succeed. I say again to the Secretary of State that if we cannot convince the legitimate, law-abiding parties standing for election in Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister's word is to be trusted, how can we expect the terrorist organisations—people whom we do not trust to begin with—to honour the commitment to the spirit of the agreement, when it is open to them to turn round and say, "Ah, but the British Prime Minister did not honour the spirit of it either"?
          Mr. Willis: Considering that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office—
          Rev. Martin Smyth: He was not a Northern Ireland Office Minister.
          Mr. Willis: My apologies to the right hon. Gentleman; he was a Home Office Minister. However, I still find his remarks on clause 3, which is an important part of the Bill, very sad indeed.
          In May, whether the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench and the Democratic Unionist Bench agree with it or not, 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted in favour of the Northern Ireland agreement. They voted for the agreement set out in the document that I am holding; they did not vote for what the Prime Minister may or may not have said.
          Every member of the public of Northern Ireland of voting age had a copy of the agreement. They were entitled to discuss it, and every Member of the House clearly understood that the referendum took place on the basis of that agreement. It was on the basis of that agreement that 71 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland voted in favour, and they sent a clear message to politicians on both sides of the House that they wanted the spirit of the agreement to be enacted in legislation, so that the peace process could move forward. That was the reality.
          The agreement is not a legal document as such. It is not something that lawyers could pore over, to question every word, cross every "t" and dot every "i". The people who sat around the table—the people who, for two years, talked and talked and talked while other hon. Members absented themselves from those talks—were the people who made the agreement, and it was they who decided, at the end of the day, that they wanted those principles to be enacted. The agreement is an act of faith, and the people of Northern Ireland will not forgive hon. Members if they decide to nit-pick over its bones instead of dealing with some of its substance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nit-pick?"] There were clearly two major issues—
          The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There can be only one contribution at a time. Mr. Phyllis? Mr. Willis.
          Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis is even better, Mr. Martin. My kids all used to say that at school, by the way. I agree that there was a lot of noise; it was like being at the Tunisia-England match.
          As has rightly been said, two major issues were facing the process as it moved forward: decommissioning and prisons. If it had been necessary to produce a Bill that was so precise that every word of every clause needed to be debated, it would never have passed through the House and the whole process would have died. Those hon. Members who, tonight, want that to happen, have made their arguments very clearly indeed. Their hidden agenda has nothing to do with carrying forward the spirit of the agreement; they are basically asking, "How can we wreck this?"
          It is very sad that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) tabled and voted on amendments that were obviously at the margins, because the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is absolutely right: the amendments, especially amendment No. 1, would not
          94
          achieve the official Opposition's stated aim—to enshrine in legislation the link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. The editorial in The Times may agree with Front-Bench Members of the official Opposition that those were not wrecking amendments, but many Members and many people in Northern Ireland will see them as wrecking.
          Mr. Moss: If the hon. Gentleman reads amendment No. 1 carefully, he will see that it contains a phrase taken from the section on prisoners on page 25 of the agreement. That relates to maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Amendment No. 1 takes from the section on decommissioning a similar form of words. We have not rewritten the agreement at all.
          Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is trying to wreck the agreement by default, but he is not doing it as clearly as the hon. Member for North Antrim and his party would like him to do it.
          The attack on the Prime Minister tonight is shameful, but if the Opposition wanted to make a clear link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners, they should have tabled an amendment honestly. Instead, they are tinkering at the edges and addressing a different audience, who will not thank them if the process starts to go off the rails.
          It is clear that when the Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland, the yes vote was flagging. His speech at Balmoral, which was his interpretation of the agreement, is a striking example of what happens when one tries to interpret a document such as the Belfast agreement. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is the need to ensure that that document in its entirety forms the basis of the peace deal in Northern Ireland. We support it, and we shall support the Government if there is a Division on clause stand part.
          9 pm
          Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and it is a pleasure to follow him. You have no idea, Mr. Martin, how great a pleasure it is to follow him. He is one of the best hands at digging holes with a JCB whom I have ever met in my life. He told us that the Bill was the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement, but, in the light of what has been said this evening, it is not the interpretation of the Government Front Bench, is it? That is a different kettle of fish. The entire debate has focused on that point, and the election in Northern Ireland will ultimately be fought and decided on the same point.
          Mr. Ingram: Politicking.
          Mr. Ross: I am not politicking. I am not even standing in the election, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I am not a member of the party of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), which the hon. Gentleman should also know. Perhaps his education is not yet complete.
          We were told that there had to be an unequivocal ceasefire. That is what the Bill states, and it seems to follow on from the cessation of violence—a term which

          95
          was so beloved of the IRA leadership after the first ceasefire: just a cessation of violence, not a cessation of all violence.
          I am sure that every day a list of the violent incidents that have taken place overnight in Northern Ireland is handed to the Secretary of State and her Ministers. They know that scarcely a night goes by without violent assaults. Some may be drug related and some just the private settling of scores, but many are paramilitary in nature. There is not a complete cessation of violence. Those carrying out the assaults may not be the Provisional IRA—they are just the subcontractors, but they spring from the same evil well.
          The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that the Prime Minister had one interpretation of the agreement. The Prime Minister may have a commitment to substantial decommissioning of weapons, which include not just guns but explosives, anti-aircraft missiles and so on. One would have thought that the Prime Minister was well aware of what was in an agreement to which he had put his name, and what was in the Bill when it was being printed. I am sure that he was consulted and that his advisers told him what it meant. However, whenever the Prime Minister insists that he has to fulfil his undertakings, we are told that he is rewriting the agreement. That is said not only by hon. Members from different parties on this Bench, but by a leading member of his own party who is an apologist in the House for the nationalist viewpoint, the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
          We are told also that there are new preconditions. That is the language used by Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness. We are told that they and others are not fulfilling the spirit of the agreement. Judging from what I have heard today, the agreement appears to have half a dozen different spirits that say different things. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough got it right on at least one issue when he said that it is the words in the agreement that count. That is exactly what the republican movement, the IRA-Sinn Fein spokesmen and nationalist Members in this place have said time after time. However, the people of Northern Ireland were given a completely different view of the issue: they thought that their concern had been laid to rest by the words of the Prime Minister, but clearly it has not.
          Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that whenever IRA-Sinn Fein have looked at any Government statement, they have taken it away and scrutinised it, not so much line by line as word by word. They have analysed every statement down to the last dotted "i" and crossed "t" in an effort to determine not only what it meant but all the possible meanings. That is what they did with this agreement, which is why they were able to tell their people that it was a good agreement for Irish nationalism, and that they should vote for it.
          I believe that many people in Northern Ireland were misled, but that the scales are now falling from their eyes. By trying to push something that was not so and giving a false impression to the people of Northern Ireland, we have not created a better situation: we have created a situation that is not inherently but certainly far worse than
          96
          that which we faced three months ago. We shall live to regret this Bill, just as we shall live to regret this agreement—of that I have no doubt whatsoever.
          Mr. Gerald Howarth: I think that all hon. Members would agree that this clause goes to the heart of the Bill.
          Marjorie Mowlam: It is a shame that the hon. Member was not here earlier.
          Mr. Howarth: I have not been in the Chamber throughout, but I have been present for a fair part of the Committee's consideration of the Bill. Perhaps the Secretary of State might do me the courtesy of correcting her comment—but there is no point in arguing about who was here when.
          The point is that the clause goes to the heart of the Bill. So far as the British people are concerned, the linkage between the release of terrorists and the decommissioning of weapons is at the heart of the search for peace in Northern Ireland. It is no use the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) saying that we should take a leap of faith and put our trust completely in the good faith of the parties involved. It is not the job of Parliament to legislate on the basis of good faith: it is our job to ensure that we pass legislation that gives clear guidance to the people of this country and to the courts in the interpretation of the law. That is what we must achieve.
          There is no doubt—I hope the Secretary of State will acknowledge it—that the peace process in which she, the Government and the parties were involved was in serious threat of being derailed. As hon. Members—particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—have pointed out, the Prime Minister's personal intervention and his assurances to the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland that there would be a linkage between the decommissioning of weapons and the release of prisoners led to the referendum result in which the people of Northern Ireland endorsed the agreement by a substantial margin.
          As we now examine the details, we are being invited to discard the Prime Minister's commitment to the people and to return to and rely on the agreement itself—which is essentially an act of faith. It is galling to the people of Britain to see those who wish to take part in the democratic process in Northern Ireland holding their convention and welcoming as heroes to that gathering men who had slain in cold blood their fellow citizens who held a contrary view. Some of those terrorists and murderers have murdered friends of mine, and friends of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
          I am afraid that we will need more than an assurance that a reliance upon the good faith of those people will be sufficient to persuade us that the Government have put in place a programme that will result in the decommissioning of weapons—the condition whereby most people in the country will accept something that is otherwise unpalatable to them: the release of those who have perpetrated crimes of despicable violence.
          The Secretary of State needs to understand that there appears to us to be a lack of clear linkage between not

          97
          only the agreement and the Prime Minister's words, but between the agreement and the Bill. The agreement refers to the parties confirming
          "their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement."
          In other words, within two years, that decommissioning must have taken place.
          The Bill does not say that that process will get under way. We require the kind of linkage proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), or the even more specific proposal in amendment No. 28, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. He has suggested that in addition to the four conditions in the Bill, there should be a fifth and a sixth. The fifth is that the terrorist organisation to which a prisoner belongs has substantially decommissioned weapons. If the Government wish to reassure the British people that there is a clear linkage, I do not see why they have a problem with that—or why they have resisted the amendments.
          The Government have made it clear that there is a specific requirement that the release of prisoners will coincide with the actual decommissioning of weapons. If those weapons are not decommissioned, it may be that the organisations that currently hold them will wish to renounce violence. However, there is a severe risk that those weapons will fall into the hands of others who do not belong to any current organisation. New organisations will be created in place of those who have caused torment and tyranny in Northern Ireland for the past generation.
          The only answer is for the Secretary of State to come to the House with proposals that will result in the removal and destruction of those weapons. Unless they are destroyed, I can assure her that there will not be peace.
          Mr. Peter Robinson: When the Belfast agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, it was judged to have been a great achievement—until it became apparent that it was being interpreted in different ways by almost everybody who had signed up to it. Each of them was able to go back to their constituencies and argue that the agreement meant this, that or the other.
          Until this moment, it was not possible to have any independent adjudication of whose story was accurate and who had properly interpreted the agreement. Sooner or later, there had to be a moment when the arrangements within the agreement were brought into legislation.
          The Bill is but the first example of that, and, given the dramatic U-turn by the Prime Minister in relation to his commitments to the people of Northern Ireland on the linking of prior decommissioning and the release of terrorist prisoners, it can hardly be a surprise to any hon. Member that he has decided that it would be appropriate to leave until after the assembly elections are out of the way the publication of the settlement Bill, which will give effect—or, perhaps, will not give effect—to his other pledges to the people of Northern Ireland. I warn the people of Northern Ireland that just as the Prime Minister has welshed on the promises relating to the Bill, he will welsh on the promises relating to the settlement Bill.
          98
          9.15 pm
          The Prime Minister made two commitments to the people of Northern Ireland on the Bill. We have dealt with one, in respect of the prior decommissioning requirement, to a considerable extent, but there was another: the fifth of his handwritten pledges—that prisoners would be kept in unless violence was given up for good. It is unfortunate that our amendment No. 39 was not chosen for debate, because it included the permanency of the arrangement as a factor to be taken into account. I pointed out on Second Reading that a complete ceasefire is, and has proved to be, very different from a permanent ceasefire. The IRA called a complete cessation of its violence before Canary Wharf, but it was not a permanent cessation, as Canary Wharf, Manchester, Thiepval barracks and a number of other atrocities clearly showed.
          The Prime Minister has not kept those commitments. There is no permanency about the requirement for a ceasefire in the Bill, and many people in Northern Ireland will already be realising that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Office Ministers were happy for the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the Belfast News Letter, the Belfast Telegraph, the BBC and Ulster Television to retail those commitments to the people of Northern Ireland as a firm, concrete assurance that there would be decommissioning before any prisoner releases. There was not a word of objection from the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister to those undertakings being given in that spirit, through the media, to the people of Northern Ireland.
          It simply is not good enough for the Liberal Democrat spokesman to say that the Prime Minister noticed that the campaign was flagging and, at the same time, that 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted because they had read the agreement, and that their vote was only on the agreement and nothing to do with any assurances that they had been given. How can he say, on the one hand, that the campaign was flagging and, obviously, the Prime Minister was able to bolster it, and, on the other, that the Prime Minister's commitments did not make the difference to the size of the referendum vote? Of course they did. The agreement and the undertakings that the Prime Minister gave cannot be separated.
          Mr. Hunter: Following those points, is not it worth recalling that, in May and June, after the general election, the Prime Minister agreed to terms offered by Sinn Fein-IRA for another ceasefire—terms that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had declined on two occasions? They included the downgrading of the decommissioning issue, in sharp contrast to the Prime Minister's pledges during his visit to Belfast on 14 May?
          Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. In respect of the clause, the key issue is that the changes would require the "good faith" of the paramilitary organisations up front, before they were given tangible rewards from the agreement. The people of Northern Ireland have the right to know that something is coming from the paramilitary organisations, rather than always having to take them on trust as they get concession after concession from the Government, at the expense of the people of Northern Ireland.
          The Secretary of State will regret her action tonight. Her refusal to accept amendments that would have fulfilled the promises of her Prime Minister and mine is

          99
          a step which she will regret in the days and months ahead. The Bill will stand as a testament of the Prime Minister's broken pledges and the conning of the Northern Ireland electorate. Many will consider that they were deceived into voting yes on assurances given by the Prime Minister about what would happen as a result of the Bill, but which did not occur.
          Mr. Donaldson: I very much regret the Government's failure to accept many amendments that have been moved today. Although I want peace, stability and progress in Northern Ireland, a process that is built on the basis of concessions to terrorism with no requirement on terrorists to end violence, dismantle their organisations and decommission their weapons will not deliver real peace.
          I predict that the agreement will not deliver peace. The men of violence will pocket the concessions and, when the need arises, will return to violence because the agreement does not require them to end their violence for good. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I know from speaking to many people in Northern Ireland that they voted for the agreement on the basis of the Prime Minister's assurances. For the Liberal Democrat spokesman to suggest otherwise shows how little he has been to Northern Ireland and talked to the people. Had he been there more often, he would understand that the Prime Minister's words made a big impact in the campaign. He should at least read the newspapers, which made it clear that the Prime Minister's words had an enormous impact on how the people of Northern Ireland voted on the agreement. Simply to dismiss that by saying, "Oh, but they only voted on the agreement" misses the point completely.
          Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not strange that, on Second Reading, Labour Members freely admitted that the Prime Minister's visits and pledges brought about the majority yes vote?
          Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
          We shall not try to hide the fact that once again the Government are fudging the decommissioning issue. We shall not be party to such a fudge. We shall make it clear to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government are fudging the decommissioning issue, just as it was fudged throughout the talks process. The Mitchell report and the report of the international body on decommissioning recommended decommissioning alongside the talks. I participated in those talks, right through to the end. I know what happened, and I know that the Government never pressed for the decommissioning of arms during the talks process. They continually sidelined the issue.
          The Liberal Democrat spokesman tells us to have faith, but if it is based on the Government's past actions, and given that they have fudged the decommissioning issue throughout the process, what faith can we have? The ambiguity that surrounds decommissioning and its linkage with the release of prisoners is evidence that it will be fudged once again. The terrorists will not be required to decommission, and prisoners will be released this summer. They will walk onto the streets without a single gun, bullet or, to quote Danny Morrison, the rust on the rifles, having been decommissioned.
          100
          When the House returns in the autumn after the summer recess and we hear a report from the Secretary of State telling us how many prisoners have been released, I wonder what she will tell the House about the progress of decommissioning. How many rifles will have been handed over? We are told that we must trust the terrorists to deliver on their side of the bargain. This is not an act of faith: it is an Act of Parliament. Parliament has the right to interpret the agreement so as to provide the law of the United Kingdom, because this is the Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Why should we be beholden to terrorist organisations? Why should not the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom determine of its own free will that it will require terrorist organisations to hand in their weapons, and that until they do so their prisoners will stay in prison. Are the Government no longer responsible for prisons?
          Surely it is within the Government's capacity to ensure that decommissioning is required, and that it has commenced and is on-going before prisoners are released. The people of Northern Ireland who have suffered at the hands of terrorists will witness terrorist prisoners being released, but no guns will be handed in. Why? Because that is not required by the legislation. That is a huge mistake.
          I say to hon. Members who support the agreement that, in the days, months and years ahead, when the process is floundering, they will regret the fact that we did not require the terrorists to deliver peace. If we leave the terrorists to deliver peace of their own free will, it will not happen. We should not provide the carrot and not have the stick. That is the reality when dealing with terrorism. The terrorists will take the carrots as they have always done. They will pocket the concessions, but they will not deliver their side of the bargain.
          The House is asking the people of Northern Ireland to trust the Secretary of State to halt the release of prisoners in the course of time, when the guns have not been handed in. Can we rely on the Secretary of State to do that? Will she give us a firm commitment or, dare I say it, a pledge that, if the guns are not being handed in, she, as the person responsible, will halt the release of terrorist prisoners? As she has not accepted our amendments, will she give a pledge to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland that, in the absence of guns being handed in, she will halt the release of terrorist prisoners? I await her answer.
          Marjorie Mowlam: I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been put.
          Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Lady should answer the last one.
          Marjorie Mowlam: It is my choice, and I shall answer the questions as well as I can in the time permitted.
          The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that we were trying to delay the settlement Bill to prevent the House from seeing what it contains. The hon. Gentleman should pause for a moment and consider the amount of legislation relating to Northern Ireland that we have got through the House in the past year. This is our fifth Bill.
          The settlement Bill could not be written before the Good Friday agreement. The parties had to agree to it, and it had to be followed by the referendum on 22 May.

          101
          We have had a very short time to draw up that Bill. I should like to pay tribute to the civil servants who have worked hard to get it into the required form so that it can come to the House in time to fulfil the Good Friday agreement promises. We are doing all we can to ensure that we honour what the people of Northern Ireland have, by consent, chosen as the way forward to reach an accommodation with which they can all live. That Bill is being drafted, and we shall get it to the House as soon as we can.
          The hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) questioned whether the words of the agreement addressed the link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners.
          Let me read again what is in the agreement. The Bill states:
          "the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives … has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence …is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations … is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act".
          That clearly establishes a link. It is in line with the words used by the Prime Minister on 16 and 14 May. People asked the Prime Minister to put his words into the Bill, and we have done so.
          Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State give way?
          9.30 pm
          Marjorie Mowlam: No. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can either ask me to answer questions, or ask me to spend my time giving way. I shall endeavour to answer the questions.
          The hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke of what he described as the concessions given to paramilitaries. That is not the case; what we are doing is implementing the agreement.
          Mr. Donaldson: Is releasing prisoners not a concession?
          Marjorie Mowlam: Let me say this. Accelerated prisoner releases are part of the agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows better than many hon. Members, the agreement contains a number of sections —on a devolved assembly, a north-south ministerial council, accelerated release of prisoners, a review of the police, and the need for a commission to consider the best way forward. It also contains a number of elements relating to equality and human rights, and recommends the establishment of an equality commission.
          We have said all along that people cannot cherry-pick. They cannot choose only the bits they like; everyone must sign up to the whole thing. That is what happened. Obviously there are parts that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley finds it difficult to accept, and I understand and respect his feelings, but, as I have said, we cannot accept the bits we like and reject the bits we do not like, and hope that it will succeed. Progress will be made only if, on the basis of the agreement, confidence can be established that everyone will get some of what they want, and no one will get 100 per cent. of what they want.
          102
          This is not about prejudging the situation, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Of course trust needs to be created, but there is a link: the Prime Minister's words have been put into the Bill, as we have said they would be, and to describe the position otherwise is to misrepresent it —as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) tried to do.
          The Prime Minister said very clearly that he would put his words into the Bill, and we have done that. It is outrageous to suggest that the Prime Minister has done otherwise. [Interruption.] You Opposition Members may interpret the position differently. I ask you to read what was said on 16 May.
          The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Lady should not involve me in the argument.
          Marjorie Mowlam: I apologise, Mr. Martin.
          Let us look at what the Prime Minister said on 16 and 14 May, and compare it with the Bill. Judging from what Opposition Members have said, I do not think that they have done that, but I tell them that the words are there. It is wrong to suggest that the Prime Minister has failed to keep his promises on Northern Ireland. In his written pledge to the people of Northern Ireland, he said:
          "No prisoners released unless violence has been given up for good."
          As I explained earlier, that is the fundamental test underlying the agreement. It is reflected in the need for a complete and unequivocal ceasefire that is set out in the clause.
          Those who said that the Prime Minister had swung the referendum vote were probably right. I do not doubt that he increased the yes vote: his 14 May speech in Belfast marked a crucial turning point. Opposition Members suggested that that made all the difference, but the vote was positive anyway. To suggest that the Prime Minister's speech was the overwhelming criterion is unrealistic. Unfortunately, some hon. Members seem not to have read the speech in detail. Far from departing from it or fudging it, the Government have taken care to reflect clearly and directly the exact terms of its undertakings.
          I have here a copy of the Prime Minister's speech. Opposition Members quoted from it, and I have been trying to find the parts that they quoted, but I do not think that their remarks reflected in any way what the Prime Minister said. He said:
          "In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence is genuinely given up for good, there are a range of factors to be taken into account."
          Those factors are listed in the Bill: the Prime Minister's words are in the Bill. His four factors included full co-operation …
          Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
          Marjorie Mowlam: No. I have told other hon. Members that I want to answer the questions that have been asked. The hon. Gentleman could have spoken earlier, but obviously chose not to do so.

          103
          The Prime Minister's four factors included full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the agreement's provisions.
          Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
          Marjorie Mowlam: No. I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not giving way.
          Mr. Moss: I shall remember that the Minister did not let me in.
          Marjorie Mowlam: It is depressing that the hon. Gentleman finds it necessary to issue threats. I shall not give way.
          The Prime Minister's first factor —full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the agreement's provisions—is reflected in clause 3(9)(d).
          The hon. Member for Basingstoke asked about the relationship between proscription and specifying organisations in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) has said, proscription is concerned with the purposes of an organisation, and the Bill is concerned with the adequacy of the ceasefire. There is no conflict between those definitions.
          The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke movingly about the victims of the troubles. I know the hon. Gentleman's background, and I understand his feelings on the issue. We have visited, known or had experience of families who have suffered as a result of the troubles. But nobody has a monopoly on suffering; in last week's debate suffering was almost traded, and that was rather distasteful. The Good Friday agreement has the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and it is an attempt to ensure that no more of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the forces, or people in Northern Ireland, will have to go through such pain.
          We have a chance to make the agreement work, but many hon. Members think that it will not. It is the best chance we have had for many years for a settlement in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Aldershot spoke about the violence of splinter groups. I agree that there is such violence, that it is disruptive, and that those groups want to destroy the peace process. The one way in which we can make sure that they do not is to keep up security, because the Government's first job is to protect the people of Northern Ireland. I guarantee that that will continue, but we must also show that there is an alternative way forward.
          There must be accommodation and discussion, and the agreement is the first step in that direction. I do not say that we have arrived, because there is much building to be done, and confidence and trust to be put in place, but I hope that the agreement will enable people to take a positive step in the right direction.
          The hon. Member for Aldershot also said several times that the Prime Minister's comments on 6 May and 14 May are not in the Bill, as did the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). They tried to
          104
          portray the Prime Minister as having been less than honest, and to say that he had deceived people. They should look at his speeches, at what is in the Bill, and at the commitment that he has put into getting the process to where it is. This is an attempt to make political capital out of the situation rather than change it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may say that that is not the case, but that is what it feels like.
          Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
          Marjorie Mowlam: Let me finish the point; then I shall certainly give way.
          I have no desire to fall out with the Opposition. In opposition, I was clear that bipartisanship made a difference. It helped no end as we worked together. Despite the aggression that has often come from Conservative Members, I hope that we can have our differences on this even though we fundamentally agree that it is the way forward, and try to move the process forward. I hope that that is possible.
          Mr. Moss: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I have a simple question. In clause 3, the Government have attempted to define a terrorist organisation. Our amendment No. (d) uses the words
          "is committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms … by 22nd May 2000."
          How does that differ fundamentally from the words in the agreement on decommissioning:
          "All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years"?
          That is 22 May 2000.
          Marjorie Mowlam: We are not going to get very far by reading parts of the Bill to each other. We have faithfully represented in the Bill the agreement that was signed and the comments that the Prime Minister made. Opposition Members can try to imply differently, but we have acted in good faith in the Bill, in line with the reassurances that the Prime Minister gave on the agreement. That is why we have not accepted the amendments.
          Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend said that she wants to work with the Opposition. Does she remember the many occasions when we were in opposition when we could have made mileage out of the Government's position, such as when they were conducting contacts with the IRA without any ceasefire? We refused to do that, because we believed that Government and Opposition should work together in the interests of Northern Ireland. Should not they learn that lesson?
          Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. I agree. I am trying tonight not to indulge in what some sections of the Opposition want us to do: to show a difference. I said "some sections", because I do not believe that my discussions with those on the Opposition Front Bench are fully played out by Back-Bench Members. That, I think, is the situation. I have avoided pointing out the contradictions with what has happened in the past, because I want to look to the future in Northern Ireland, not live in the past.
          Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
          The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 10.

          Division No. 303]

          [9.43 pm

          AYES

          Ainger, Nick

          George, Andrew (St Ives)

          Allan, Richard

          George, Bruce (Walsall S)

          Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

          Gerrard, Neil

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Gibson, Dr Ian

          Ashton, Joe

          Godsiff, Roger

          Ballard, Jackie

          Goggins, Paul

          Banks, Tony

          Gordon, Mrs Eileen

          Barron, Kevin

          Gorrie, Donald

          Bayley, Hugh

          Grant, Bernie

          Beard, Nigel

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Bell, Martin (Tatton)

          Grogan, John

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

          Best, Harold

          Hancock, Mike

          Bradley, Keith (Withington)

          Hanson, David

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Harris, Dr Evan

          Brinton, Mrs Helen

          Harvey, Nick

          Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

          Heal, Mrs Sylvia

          Browne, Desmond

          Healey, John

          Buck, Ms Karen

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Burden, Richard

          Heppell, John

          Burgon, Colin

          Hesford, Stephen

          Burstow, Paul

          Hoon, Geoffrey

          Butler, Mrs Christine

          Hope, Phil

          Byers, Stephen

          Howells, Dr Kim

          Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

          Hurst, Alan

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Hutton, John

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          Iddon, Dr Brian

          Canavan, Dennis

          Ingram, Adam

          Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

          Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

          Chaytor, David

          Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

          Chidgey, David

          Jamieson, David

          Chisholm, Malcolm

          Jenkins, Brian

          Church, Ms Judith

          Johnson, Miss Melanie

          Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

          (Welwyn Hatfield)

          Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

          Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

          Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

          Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

          Clelland, David

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Clwyd, Ann

          Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Coleman, Iain

          Keeble, Ms Sally

          Colman, Tony

          Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

          Cooper, Yvette

          Kemp, Fraser

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

          Cotter, Brian

          King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

          Cousins, Jim

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

          Cox, Tom

          Lawrence, Ms Jackie

          Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

          Leslie, Christopher

          Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

          Levitt, Tom

          Cummings, John

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Darvill, Keith

          Love, Andrew

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

          McCafferty, Ms Chris

          Dismore, Andrew

          McDonnell, John

          Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

          McFall, John

          Donohoe, Brian H

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Dowd, Jim

          McIsaac, Shona

          Drew, David

          McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

          Edwards, Huw

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Efford, Clive

          McNamara, Kevin

          Ellman, Mrs Louise

          McNulty, Tony

          Fearn, Ronnie

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Field, Rt Hon Frank

          McWalter, Tony

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          McWilliam, John

          Flynn, Paul

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Follett, Barbara

          Mallaber, Judy

          Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Gapes, Mike

          Marshall-Andrews, Robert

          Gardiner, Barry

          Martlew, Eric

          106

          Maxton, John

          Savidge, Malcolm

          Meale, Alan

          Sawford, Phil

          Merron, Gillian

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Michael, Alun

          Sheerman, Barry

          Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

          Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

          Skinner, Dennis

          Milburn, Alan

          Smith, Angela (Basildon)

          Miller, Andrew

          Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

          Mitchell, Austin

          Smith, John (Glamorgan)

          Moffatt, Laura

          Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Soley, Clive

          Moran, Ms Margaret

          Squire, Ms Rachel

          Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

          Starkey, Dr Phyllis

          Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          Mudie, George

          Stunell, Andrew

          Mullin, Chris

          Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          (Dewsbury)

          Norris, Dan

          Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Olner, Bill

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Osborne, Ms Sandra

          Tipping, Paddy

          Pearson, Ian

          Todd, Mark

          Perham, Ms Linda

          Tonge, Dr Jenny

          Pickthall, Colin

          Touhig, Don

          Pike, Peter L

          Truswell, Paul

          Plaskitt, James

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Pond, Chris

          Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

          Pope, Greg

          Twigg, Derek (Halton)

          Pound, Stephen

          Tyler, Paul

          Powell, Sir Raymond

          Ward, Ms Claire

          Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

          Wareing, Robert N

          Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

          Watts, David

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Radice, Giles

          Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

          Raynsford, Nick

          Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

          Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

          Willis, Phil

          Rendel, David

          Winnick, David

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

          Rooker, Jeff

          Woolas, Phil

          Rooney, Terry

          Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

          Roy, Frank

          Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

          Ruane, Chris

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          Mr. Kevin Hughes and

          Sanders, Adrian

          Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

          NOES

          Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

          Swayne, Desmond

          Donaldson, Jeffrey

          Thompson, William

          Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

          Wilkinson, John

          Hunter, Andrew

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Paisley, Rev Ian

          Mr. William Ross and

          Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

          Rev. Martin Smyth

          Question accordingly agreed to.
          Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
          Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
          To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Dowd.]
          Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 1st June, be approved.
    That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 1st June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.

    AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Tim Collins be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. David Curry be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    CATERING COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Keith Simpson be discharged from the Catering Committee and Miss Julie Kirkbride be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. David Prior be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. John Bercow be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TREASURY COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Quentin Davies be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Nick Gibb be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    Education in Somerset
    9.57 pm
    Jackie Ballard: I should like to present a petition of 679 signatures, collected by my constituent Thomas Marlowe, who attends Halcon primary school in Taunton. The petition says:
    The petition of Thomas Marlowe, of 25 Cromwell Road, and 679 other Somerset residents, declares that we support action to end budget cuts to our schools.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take note of our concerns and urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to re-examine provision for education in the Somerset area.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  EU Structural Funds
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  9.58 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Hon. Members may feel that it is particularly timely that a Welsh Member should be given the opportunity to raise the important subject of European Union structural funds, when the Council of Ministers is meeting in our capital city of Cardiff, which will soon be home to the National Assembly for Wales, our first ever all-Wales elected body.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will know that there is considerable interest in Agenda 2000 and the review of structural funds, particularly in Wales, and it is not difficult to understand why.
  The Welsh economy has undergone enormous structural changes in recent years, with the contraction of the traditional heavy industries of coal and steel. The difficult process of transformation of the Welsh economy has undoubtedly been assisted by European funding in respect of financing infrastructure and other projects.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Mr. Thomas: The interest that has been generated in Wales in reforming structural funds is understandable, given the context of economic change which has been very much a feature of life in Wales recently.
  There is a positive feeling in Wales towards Europe. It is worth emphasising that there is a great expectation that the help and assistance that deprived areas of Wales have received in recent years will continue well into the next millennium.
  I appreciate the fact that the review of structural funds is a sensitive subject, and I acknowledge that the Government, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents the lead UK Government Department, are involved in what are no doubt delicate negotiations with our European partners. Given the requirements relating to the size of the EU budget and the financial implications of enlargement, the process of reform is likely to be difficult.
  During tonight's short debate, I wish, first, to seek clarification from my hon. Friend on the nature of the review process and the timetable within which Government Departments are working. Secondly, I should like to take the opportunity to put the Welsh case, particularly for objective 1 status—the most valuable funding available from Europe—and to seek assurances that Wales will be dealt with fairly. The Welsh expression "chwarae teg" means fair play, and that is all we are seeking. I have no intention of denigrating the case that has been put on behalf of other regions and nations of the United Kingdom, particularly Cornwall and South Yorkshire.
  I acknowledge that the Welsh case has been, and will continue to be, put forcefully by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  109
  Outside Wales, there is perhaps a perception that we have done well economically in recent years. There have been many well-publicised inward investment projects, but, as those who know the Welsh economy well will vouchsafe, those projects and the bulk of inward investment have been confined to the more prosperous south-eastern and north-eastern regions, leaving behind the western parts of Wales and the old industrial valleys.
  The Welsh Development Agency has a high profile and it has done a good job. It is a success story, although inward investment, both foreign and UK-based, has declined in recent years. The impression may have been given that Wales does not need help, but that is not the case. In south-east Wales, particularly in Cardiff, there is increasing economic prosperity and optimism, but that is not true of the areas represented by me and some of my hon. Friends. In west Wales and the valleys, there is severe economic deprivation.
  Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that figures recently published by the Welsh Development Agency's international division show that, between 1993 and 1997, not a single job was created by foreign inward investment in the Conwy unitary authority area, which is part of my constituency and, furthermore, UK inward investment created only 18 jobs in that area?
  On foreign inward investment, I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that that part of north-west Wales is the worst in Wales and in Europe. I do not think —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is a long intervention, even for an Adjournment debate. That is sufficient.
  Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The record on inward investment, particularly in that part of Wales, has been poor and the cause of considerable concern. It gives the lie to the idea that Wales has universally done well out of inward investment. There is a growing east-west divide in Wales. Regions in the east have done better and prospered from inward investment, but that has not percolated through to the more peripheral areas of the west and the valleys—their peripherality is very much a feature of their economy.
  The levels of gross domestic product in those unitary authorities are particularly low. I shall not burden hon. Members with too many statistics, but my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that, in such a policy area, statistics are unavoidable, particularly bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing with the criteria for objective 1, which requires sub-regions to establish that they have a GDP of less than 75 per cent. of the European average.
  According to statistics produced not only by the House of Commons Library, but by the independent source of Cardiff university business school, the sub-region of west Wales and the valleys has a GDP per capita of 68 per cent. of the EU average, which is well within the 75 per cent. threshold, compared with 90 per cent. in eastern Wales. My constituency incorporates much of the unitary authority of Conwy, which has a GDP per capita of 59 per cent. of the EU average. Those are remarkably low figures and show that there is economic difficulty and deprivation in western areas of Wales which, in my respectful submission, should be reflected in a vigorous approach by all Government Departments in pressing for the best available funding from Europe.
  110
  There are statistics relating to economic activity. As those who have studied the figures are aware, levels of unemployment in the UK are not necessarily as high as in other European member states. That may reflect how the figures have been compiled in the past, but the figures for economic inactivity show that real unemployment in Wales, especially in my area, is even higher. Economic inactivity rises to about 30 per cent. in some areas, showing that there is great hidden unemployment.
  West Wales and the valleys show up poorly on all indices of economic deprivation and poverty. The Welsh Office recently produced a Green Paper entitled "Better Health, Better Wales", revealing that the general and infant mortality rates in Wales are poor:
  "Within Wales a significant proportion of the population remain deeply disadvantaged in terms of expectation of life and health-related quality of life, and there are wide variations between those with the poorest health and those with the best."
  Life expectancy in some parts of the south Wales valleys is about five years less than in other parts of Wales and considerably worse than in other parts of the UK.
  It would be apt to refer, in the context of western Wales and the valleys, to the crisis facing rural communities which compounds the problems encountered by these peripheral areas where farming is a crucial part of the rural economy. Farm incomes have declined dramatically in recent years—a factor which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take into account.
  I had the opportunity to put the case for my constituency and for western Wales and the valleys to the President of the European Commission when he came to Wales about three weeks ago, before the summit. Mr. Santer was quite surprised to discover how much we had depended on European funding during the transition from our dependence on declining industries. He was quoted in The Western Mail as saying that, if the right conditions and criteria were met, there was no reason why Wales could not benefit from objective 1 funding. He added that, if the western half of Wales met the criteria for objective 1 status, he could see no reason why the country should not benefit from such funding. I trust, therefore, that the DTI and other relevant Departments will pursue the Welsh case as vigorously as possible.
  Mr. Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend has asked for fair play in respect of Wales. Is he aware that, when the structural funds were reviewed last time, under a Conservative Government, a senior British civil servant in Brussels said that north Wales got the rawest deal in Europe?
  Mr. Thomas: There is a considerable legacy of disquiet about how that review was conducted. Many commentators in Wales feel that some parts of the country, particularly in the north, were badly dealt with. I am confident that the Government will pursue the interests of all regions of Wales as vigorously as possible.
  Ms Jackie Lawrence: My hon. Friend said that farm incomes in Wales had dropped by 43 per cent. Does he agree that Wales faces a dichotomy, in that, although it is incumbent on us to paint a picture of a successful, thriving, enthusiastic region, that presentation can often mask the problems that we have in parts of west Wales—especially my constituency, where

  111
  not only have people been affected by the 43 per cent. drop in farm incomes, but our gross domestic product decreased by about 12.5 per cent. under the previous Administration?
  Mr. Thomas: I am aware that the position in my hon. Friend's constituency is especially severe. It has a problem of peripherality, which is shared by the other areas that I mentioned—a feature which is unique to Wales—and, as the Welsh Affairs Select Committee said in its recent report, in Wales there has been an imbalance in economic activity and inward investment. Eastern areas of Wales—one wishes them well, and I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is in the Chamber—have done very well indeed, although perhaps not as well as they could. When we have the National Assembly for Wales, greater prosperity and optimism are to be expected in Wales.
  At present, however, there is an imbalance. The wealth that appears to have come to Wales does not go beyond two narrow areas—the A55 corridor, bordering England, in north-east Wales, and the M4 corridor, in south-east Wales. Any objective assessment of the economic data will reveal that the western areas of Wales and the valleys are very badly off indeed, and have GDP levels far below the threshold of 75 per cent. In those circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be more than prepared to pursue the case as vigorously as possible.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on initiating this important debate. I say to him—and to all my hon. Friends who intervened—that we note the important points that have been made.
  The debate gives me the opportunity to bring hon. Members on both sides of the House up to date on the specific aspects of the proposed reform of the structural and cohesion funds. This is a good moment to discuss these issues, as we take forward discussion of the draft regulations under the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. The proposals are also being considered by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
  Ministers and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, the lead Department on the funds' reform, liaise closely with colleagues in interested Departments, including the Welsh Office, to co-ordinate UK policy. Administration of structural funds programmes within Wales, and the distribution of funds to them, is the responsibility of the Welsh Office. The DTI has responsibility for the co-ordination of issues that affect the UK as a whole.
  It might be helpful to set the present discussions on the structural funds' reform in the wider context of the challenges confronting the European Union. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a critical point in the Union's development, not least because successful enlargement will be vital in ensuring that the Union is ready for the 21st century. The Council of Ministers, meeting in Cardiff today and tomorrow, will discuss, among other matters, Agenda 2000. I congratulate my hon. Friend warmly on his timing.
  112
  Reform of the structural funds is one of the most important elements in the process. It is certainly one of the most visible benefits of the European Union to local people. For many people, the EU is manifested through structural funds. That is why it is so important that we get the reform right.
  At the informal meeting of EU regional policy Ministers in Glasgow last week, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, there was universal agreement on a number of principles: the importance of job creation and employability, and of regional competitiveness; the value of effective partnership between the Commission, national Governments, and regional and local organisations, and of a clear definition of role for each; and that subsidiarity—that is, decision making as close to the people as possible—should have practical effect. In other words, there should be more regional and local control over the funds' delivery. I know that the agreement on those principles will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
  Those points mirror the views that emerged consistently from the local and regional consultations that took place earlier in the year across the UK. The UK-wide consultation exercise was invaluable in gathering views that we could feed into the negotiations. This is an appropriate moment for me to thank all the interested parties who took part. We are grateful for all their contributions.
  During our presidency, we have taken the negotiations forward as effectively as possible, given the divergent views across member states on the detail of the proposed regulations. It has been expedient, therefore, to focus discussion on the general regulations that deal with simplifying the administration of the funds. Excessive bureaucracy is one of the aspects that people dislike about the administration of the funds, and we are determined to simplify it as much as possible.
  In the consultation exercise, that was an issue close to the hearts of those, particularly on the monitoring committees throughout the country, whose task is to ensure proper administration of the programmes. That is why it is so important for the Government to liaise with those whose job is the practical administration of the funds.
  I spoke at the national simplification conference in early May to discuss issues for regional partnerships. Over the past few months, I have corresponded with many hon. Members, and have met a number of Members and their local delegations to discuss structural fund reform. I shall continue to do so to ensure that local views are represented in the on-going discussions.
  A key concern for the Government in pressing forward the negotiations under our presidency has been to leave a solid framework for their continuation next month into the Austrian presidency. On issues affecting finance and eligibility criteria, all member states have distinctive views. Most, including the UK, have difficulties with the current proposals. The discussions are likely to take place towards the end of the year and will continue into early 1999.
  In the negotiations to date, the UK presidency has been able to secure agreement on some of the general principles that support the universally agreed aim of simplification of the funds, making them more effective and better value

  113
  for money. That is an important first step in such a radical reform proposal, and we should not underestimate the scale of the task and of the achievement.
  Throughout the negotiations, the Government have kept and will continue to keep in mind one overarching principle, which will become more important as we head into the discussions in the autumn—the principle of fairness. That point has been made repeatedly this evening, and the Government have taken the message. Fairness has dominated the lobbying positions of the Government and local organisations in Brussels with the Commission and with other member states, since the publication of the Agenda 2000 communication.
  Fairness means that the costs of reform should be shared fairly between all existing member states. The Government do not believe that the proposals as they stand will achieve this. We believe that if we are to make the funds affordable, all member states must accept cuts. Clearly, that means that no member state should receive more per capita than it does now.
  Therefore, we are not prepared to bear disproportionate cuts in United Kingdom coverage. On the strength of our lobbying before publication of the proposals, we secured the last-minute concession of the safety net in the draft regulations that limits to one third loss of coverage for objective 2 and 5b areas. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, that could prove to be an invaluable achievement for Wales.
  We should remember also that that is merely the starting point in a long and complex set of negotiations. There is a great deal more work to be done to achieve fair criteria and transparent systems across all the objectives. For example, we should like to see greater flexibility on
  114
  the objective 1 GDP cut-off and the inclusion of a GDP criterion under the new objective 2. We are still some way from the discussions on eligibility criteria and financial issues, and we should certainly not try to prejudge their outcome.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In adding my support, and my congratulations to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate, I respectfully suggest that there is no question of the west and the valleys of Wales qualifying under all the criteria. I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that this is a cross-party issue and that we fully support the comments of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues this evening.
  Mrs. Roche: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am encouraged by the many representations from, and my many discussions with, hon. Members on both sides of the House about this issue. That is a very encouraging part of the process as we pursue this issue that is so important to the United Kingdom.
  We are at the beginning of this vital process, and I cannot overstate the importance of pursuing together, in common cause, the best deal for the United Kingdom as a whole. My hon. Friend has done the House a great service in raising this vital policy area tonight. I will ensure that we keep the House fully informed about all the discussions that are taking place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 396, what was the operational role being performed by HMS 'Cornwall', on each of the dates listed; and if any Sandline-operated helicopters landed on HMS 'Cornwall' on any of those dates. [44892]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 396, as regards the operational role of HMS Cornwall while deployed off West Africa. However, I assume the right hon. Member seeks information about specific activities by the ship. On the days in question HMS Cornwall:
  23 February 1998—rendezvoused with HMS Monmouth for handover of West Africa duties at 1200A and to replenish stores from the accompanying RFA Orangeleaf;
  25–27 February 1998—was alongside in Conakry, Guinea for maintenance and direct liaison on Sierra Leone issues with British High Commission personnel;
  28 February-20 March 1998—after replenishment at sea from RFA Orangeleaf, passage to Freetown, Sierra Leone from whence direct humanitarian assistance was provided to local organisations and people.
  23–27 April 1998—passage from Nouadhibou, Mauritania, arriving Conakry, Guinea 24 April for informal visit including official reception.

  No Sandline-operated helicopters landed on HMS Cornwall during any of these days, or at any other time.

  Pensions
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing pensions to half of spouses' pensions for widows of those in the armed services prior to 1973. [44666]

  Dr. Reid
  We estimate that the cost to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme of raising the level of all pre-1973 service widows' pensions to half that of their deceased husbands' pensions would be approximately £30 million a year. A precise figure could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Foreign Nationals (Security Clearance)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by nationality for each of the last five years, non-UK nationals who have been security cleared to(a) confidential, (b) secret and (c) top secret classifications. [45092]
  2
  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Base Repair Organisation, Stirling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors have delayed the investigation by the Ministry of Defence Police into allegations pertaining to alleged fraud at the Army Base Repair Organisation at Stirling, over the period 15 December 1997 to June 1998. [44416]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP). I have asked the Chief Constable to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 15 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Ministry of Defence Police investigation at Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO) Stirling, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) Agency.
  The Ministry of Defence Police are investigating allegations of irregularities at ABRO Stirling. I have reviewed the investigation and consider that it is being expeditiously pursued given its nature and complexity.

  Armed Service Personnel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women are currently serving in each of the three armed services. [44117]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 June 1998, c. 312]: I regret that the percentage figure for female RAF officers was given incorrectly as 9.4 per cent.; the actual figure is 8.6 per cent. For completeness I reproduce the entire table.

  As at 1 April 1998 the number of women serving in the Armed Forces was:

  Officers

  Other ranks

  Total

  Naval Service

  453 (7.3%)

  2,809 (7.7%)

  3,262 (7.3%)

  Army

  1,172 (8.4%)

  6,260 (6.5%)

  7,432 (6.8%)

  Royal Air Force

  939 (8.6%)

  4,067 (9.1%)

  5,006 (9.0%)

  All Services

  2,564 (7.9%)

  13,136 (7.4%)

  15,700 (7.5%)

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in her Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43319]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for civil servants. Information on the paybill costs

  3
  for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the cost of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Prisoners (Release)
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many prisoners will be eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement; [43944]

  (2) how many of the prisoners who will be eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement are serving life sentences. [43942]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Eligibility for release will be determined by the Sentence Review Commission. The Commissioners will consider applications against the following criteria:

  (i) whether a prisoner is serving a sentence of five years or more, including a life sentence, for a scheduled offence which has not been de-scheduled by the Attorney-General.

  (ii) that the prisoner is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation;

  (iii) that a prisoner, if released immediately, would not be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; and

  (iv) that a life sentence prisoner released immediately would not be a danger to the public.

  Current estimates indicate that there are 402 prisoners serving sentences of five years or more for scheduled offences relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland including 129 life sentence prisoners without current provisional release dates. In addition, there are 20 prisoners convicted of similar offences who have been transferred to Northern Ireland from Great Britain (including seven prisoners serving life sentences).

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over what period prisoners would normally be released who are eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement.[43943]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: It is not possible to state in advance when life sentence prisoners will be released. Many determinate sentence prisoners who would be eligible under the scheme are already being released under current arrangements.

  Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside her Department; and in each case if she will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [44361]
  4
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Department inquiry/review

  Date of establishment

  Chairman

  1994

  Acute Hospitals

  March 1994

  Dr. J. K. McKenna

  Reorganisation Project

  Review of the NI (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991

  May 1994

  Mr. J. J. Rowe QC

  Review of Health

  October 1994

  Rabbi Julia

  Promotion Arrangements

  Neuberger

  Review of Teacher Education

  November 1994

  Sir William Taylor

  1995

  Review of Major Museums in NI

  January 1995

  Alistair Wilson OBE

  Stormont Fire & Safety in Crown Buildings

  January 1995

  Sir Reginald Doyle

  Review of the NI Police Complaints System

  November 1995

  Dr. Maurice Hayes

  Employment Equality Review

  February 1995

  Michael Lavery QC

  The International Body

  November 1995

  Senator George Mitchell

  Inquiry into Legislation Against Terrorism

  December 1995

  Rt. Hon. Lord Lloyd of Berwick

  1996

  Review of Youth Work Curriculum

  March 1996

  Mr. Tom Wylie

  Independent Review of Parades and Marches in NI

  July 1996

  Dr. Peter North

  1997

  Report on Staff Deployment in the Northern Ireland Civil Service

  March 1997

  Dr. Maurice Hayes

  Youth Service Police Review

  June 1997

  Mr. Stephen Turner

  Report of the Medical

  July 1997

  Professor Liam

  Review Panel

  Donaldson

  Victims of Violence

  October 1997

  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield

  The Narey Inquiry into incidents at HM Prison Maze

  December 1997

  Mr. Martin Narey

  Secondary Schools (Grammar Stream)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will permit secondary schools which have adequate accommodation and appropriate staffing to provide a grammar school stream in their intake for pupils deemed suitable for a grammar school place in the transfer procedure; and if she will make a statement. [44972]

  Mr. Worthington
  Any Development Proposals for the creation of grammar streams at secondary schools will be considered on their merits, taking account of the evidence of parental views on the choices available to them at local level, and the implications for educational standards, for efficiency in the use of public expenditure, and for equality of opportunity of access to grammar schools places.

  The Government have just launched a major research project on the effects of the selective system on secondary education in Northern Ireland, so that debate on all aspects

  5
  of the system, and consideration of possible changes to it, can be based on better information and understanding of the present system.

  Extradition Warrants
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for each of the last 25 years the number of extradition warrants issued by the RUC for persons sought for terrorist type offences whom the RUC believed to be resident in the Irish Republic, the number of such warrants executed by the authorities in the Republic and how many resulted in persons being returned for trial in Northern Ireland; [44915]

  (2) if she will list, for each of the last 25 years, the number of extradition warrants issued by the RUC for persons sought for crimes, other than terrorists related offences, whom the RUC believed to be resident in the Irish Republic, the number of such warrants executed by the authorities in the Republic and how many resulted in persons being returned for trial in Northern Ireland. [449681]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Extradition requests to Republic of Ireland 1973–1997

  Terrorist offences

  Non-terrorist offences

  Year

  Persons sought

  Persons arrested

  Persons extradited

  Persons sought

  Persons arrested

  Persons extradited

  1973

  8

  1

  —

  14

  5

  3

  1974

  6

  2

  —

  24

  11

  9

  1975

  10

  6

  —

  10

  2

  1

  1976

  14

  6

  1

  20

  7

  7

  1977

  8

  7

  1

  17

  11

  8

  1978

  7

  3

  —

  33

  16

  15

  1979

  0

  —

  —

  14

  9

  8

  1980

  5

  1

  —

  18

  12

  12

  1981

  2

  1

  —

  20

  4

  4

  1982

  3

  —

  —

  33

  19

  18

  1983

  5

  2

  1

  22

  10

  10

  1984

  1

  1

  1

  10

  1

  1

  1985

  5

  1

  —

  28

  6

  6

  1986

  5

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1987

  20

  6

  2

  0

  —

  —

  1988

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1989

  5

  2

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1990

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1991

  1

  1

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1992

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1993

  0

  —

  —

  4

  3

  2

  1994

  2

  —

  1

  11

  10

  10

  1995

  0

  —

  —

  6

  2

  2

  1996

  0

  —

  —

  5

  4

  4

  1997

  3

  —

  —

  5

  3

  3

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Office; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43318]
  6
  The Prime Minister
  At 1 June, there were 19 special advisers employed in No. 10 Downing Street. The estimated paybill for 1998–99 is £1.1 million. This figure does not include the cost of National Insurance contributions which are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the numbers and costs of employing Special Advisers in the then Prime Minister's office in 1996–97 was given in the answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 21 January 1998,Official Report, columns 567–68.

  Bilderberg Group
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers attended the meetings of the Bilderberg Group between 13 and 16 May in Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement. [43684]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attended part of the Bilderberg Conference in Ayrshire from 14 to 15 May this year.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 1998,Official Report, column 369, on Government policy towards older people, if he will adopt the aims of the Better Government Programme establishing mechanisms for Whitehall departments and Next Steps agencies to consult and involve older people in the development of policy and practice.[45215]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: The inter-Ministerial Group which I have established will aim to ensure that the development of Government policy and practice takes account of the needs and wishes of older people. This will include working with non-governmental groups representing older people's interests, and with older people themselves, to gain a better understanding of their lives and needs.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of the Civil Contingencies Unit in respect of the impact of the Millennium computer problem. [45756]

  The Prime Minister
  The Civil Contingencies Unit has been renamed the Civil Contingencies Committee following transfer of day to day executive, policy and representational work to the Home Office.

  Through MISC 4, Ministers are reporting progress in their areas of responsibility towards a technical solution to the Millennium Date Change problem as well as in developing contingency arrangements for consequence management. The Civil Contingencies Committee is in regular contact with MISC 4 and if necessary will fulfil its normal role of co-ordinating the central government response to a major emergency.

  Buenos Aires Climate Change Conference
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that officials from the Department of Trade and Industry form part of the British delegation to the Buenos Aires conference on the environment in November. [45792]
  7
  The Prime Minister
  Yes. DTI officials will form part of the British delegation to the UN Climate Change Convention meeting in Buenos Aires, in November.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her policy to ensure that the Multilateral Agreement on Investment is discussed at the WTO.[46012]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is being negotiated at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In addition to our work on the MAI, the Government are committed to working towards the establishment of multilateral rules on investment in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We are playing a full part in WTO discussions, aimed at exploring the links between trade and investment and the implications for development and economic growth. We have also recently agreed a contribution of over half a million pounds to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to help build developing countries' capacity to participate effectively in discussions on a possible multilateral framework for investment.

  Amazonian Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the total UK contribution under(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral agreements in respect of Amazonian environmental programmes in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) the current year; and if she will make a statement. [45391]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Total UK contributions in respect of Amazonian environmental programmes in 1997/98 were:

  (a) bilateral—£2.34 million;

  (b) multilateral (G7 Pilot Programme)—£0.7 million.

  In the current year total projected contributions are:

  (a) bilateral—£2.52 million;

  (b) multilateral—£1.19 million.

  Indian Sub-continent and China
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the total aid provided by Her Majesty's Government to(a) India, (b) Pakistan, and (c) China, indicating how much of this was delivered (i) Government to Government, (ii) through non-Governmental organisations, and (iii) by other means; and if she will list in each case the projects carried out during the last two years. [45974]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in preparing a sustainable development plan for Montserrat; and what support the Department for International Development will provide for implementation. [46087]
  8
  Mr. Foulkes
  Agreement has been reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Montserrat on a draft text which is now being made available for public consultation. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. I hope that agreement can be reached on the final version by August. The Department for International Development will make available up to a further £75 million over the next three years to support the Plan. The scale of this pledge reflects the devastation to the island and the constraints imposed on the private sector by the continuing uncertainty about the volcano. If the volcano enters a permanent state of repose many of these constraints would be lifted, enabling the people of Montserrat to take greater responsibility for their livelihoods and the private sector to take a greater role in rebuilding the island.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many sports men and women the UK Sports Institute plans to cater for when it is fully operational. [44734]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: The number of users of the United Kingdom Sports Institute services and facilities will be as high as presently benefiting from World Class Performance Plans, of which there are currently 1,745 athletes, but more will benefit as the regional network is developed.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Landlords (Health and Safety)
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will review the avoidance of liability for fines levied on landlords found guilty of contraventions of health and safety provisions in private rented accommodation by means of registering their companies in Jersey. [45090]

  Mr. Hoon
  Enforcement action can be taken if a company has assets in this country, even if it is registered in another jurisdication. I am not aware that landlords are avoiding their liability for fines for contravening health and safety provisions in private rented accommodation by registering their companies in Jersey and I have no plans for review at this time.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what guidance he gives to magistrates' court committees on the procedures they are required to follow before deciding to close courts under their jurisdiction. [45767]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. Section 56(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 requires only that the magistrates' courts committee consult with the paying authority or authorities before it determines to close a courthouse. However, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees plans to issue guidance on this area, which my Department considers represents good practice.
  9
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria he takes into account in determining an appeal under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 against the proposed closure of magistrates' courts. [45771]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no statutory criteria. Every appeal is dealt with on its merits and much depends on the grounds of the particular appeal lodged.

  Typical grounds which are common to many appeals are: accessibility for all court users; the provision of modern facilities, for example facilities for disabled people, security arrangements for violent offenders, separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses; the costs of necessary renovations to bring the court up to a modern standard; the time and travel distances for court users and the cost of that travel; the provision of courtrooms in the area; and overall efficiency.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what price the Social Security Commissioners charge to the general public per page for copies of their decisions; and what plans there are to change that price. [45486]

  Mr. Hoon
  The current charge (per page) is 50p for subscribers and £1 for general requests. We are reviewing these charges but no decision has yet been made.

WALES

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to write to the hon. Member for Blaeneau Gwent to provide information in response to the question for answer on 23 April relating to Gwent Tertiary College (reference 39440). [45954]

  Mr. Hain
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 1 June and I am still awaiting a response to my invitation to him to meet officials as I continue to be anxious to assist his quest for information.

  Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will(a) make a statement on and (b) list the dates of occasions on which his Department had meetings with (i) the Chairman, Chief Executive and/or other senior personnel of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and (ii) the Director of National Museums and Galleries of Wales to discuss the future of the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum and its Pier Head site within the last three months. [45725]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department has regular exchanges with the Chairman and senior management of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, and with the Director of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales. The future of the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum and its Pier Head site has not been discussed with the Corporation. Decisions on the future site of the Industrial and Maritime Museum are entirely a matter for the Council of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales.10
  Discussions with the Director of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales have included possible options for the future of the exhibits currently held at the Museum.

  Scott Harbour
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1998,Official Report, column 545, if he will make a statement on the notification procedure to his Department by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation of payments made by it to ABP under the Scott Harbour rental guarantee scheme; how much of the £1.4 million maximum has so far been paid to ABP; on which date or dates such payments started; and if he will make a statement. [45772]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Payments under the Scott Harbour rental agreement are an operational matter for the Corporation. In response to my hon. Friend's earlier Questions about the agreement, 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 400, the Chief Executive wrote to him on 27 March. I will ask the Chief Executive to let my hon. Friend have a further letter updating that information and place a copy of the reply in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those states in conflict which have received(a) toxicological agents and (b) baton rounds since 1 May 1997; when the licence was granted; and when the delivery took place.[43475]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 7 May 1998, Official Report, column 476.

  UN Special Representatives
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the appointments by the United Nations of special representatives in the last 10 years; and what contribution to date his Department has made towards the costs of each special representative. [44227]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 1 June 1998 the Secretary-General of the United Nations had 34 Special Representatives and 8 Special Envoys. I will arrange for a full list to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Special Envoys are funded under UN procedures for unforeseen and extraordinary expenditures through an advance from the UN Working Capital Fund. The UK's percentage contribution to the Working Capital Fund is the same as to the UN regular budget. In 1998 the UK contribution to the UN regular budget is 5.076 per cent. of the total appropriation. Special Representatives are funded under the budgets for peacekeeping operations. The UK's assessed contribution in 1998 to the peacekeeping budget is 6.1993 per cent. of the appropriation.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his Department's missions involved in human rights activity in 1997–98, indicating the nature of each project Supported by each mission. [44226]

  Number of projects

  Mission

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  I

  J

  Theme (see Key below)Total

  Abidjan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Addis Ababa

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Almaty

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Amman

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Ankara

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Antananarivo

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Bangkok

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Belmopan

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  6

  Belgrade

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Bogota

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Brasilia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bratislava

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Budapest

  —

  5

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Cairo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Caracas

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  7

  Castries

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  Colombo

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dakar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Dar es Salaam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Dhaka

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Guatamala City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hanoi

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Harare

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Islamabad

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  11

  18

  Istanbul

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Jakarta

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Jerusalem

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Kampala

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  8

  Kathmandu

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  8

  Khartoum

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Kiev

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Kingston

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Kinshasa

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Kuala Lumpur

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  6

  Lilongwe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lima

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Luanda

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Lusaka

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Managua

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Manila

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Maputo

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Maseru

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Mbabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Mexico City

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Minsk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Moscow

  2

  2

  —

  2

  4

  8

  1

  2

  1

  1

  23

  Nairobi

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5

  New Delhi

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Nicosia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Peking

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Port Louis

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Port of Spain

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Phnomn Penh

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Port Moresby

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Prague

  1

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  10

  Pretoria

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  9

  Quito

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Rabat

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Riga

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Sanaa

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  6

  St. John

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  San Salvador

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Santiago

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  8

  Sarajevo

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Sofia

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Tallinn

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  6

  Tashkent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Tbilisi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Tegucigalpa

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Tortola

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Vila

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  4

  12
  Mr. Fatchett
  Details of Diplomatic Missions involved in human rights projects in 1997–98 and the nature of those projects are given. Some of this work was supported by funds from the Department for International Development.
  13

  Number of projects

  Mission

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  I

  J

  Theme (see key below)Total

  Vilnius

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Windhoek

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Yaounde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Yerevan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Zagreb

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Total

  44

  48

  23

  14

  33

  44

  28

  12

  18

  49

  315

  Note:

  A. Children

  B. Discrimination and Groups

  C. Elections and Democracy

  D. Support for the Media

  E. Human Rights Awareness

  F. Civil society including human rights institutions and NGOs

  G. Rule of Law and Accessible Justice

  H. Security

  I. Prison conditions

  J. Women

  Algeria
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what liaison has taken place between EU and Algerian parliamentarians since the visit of the Minister of State to Algeria on 20 January. [44385]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A group of MEPs visited Algeria from 8 to 12 February 1998. They met members of the Algerian Government as well as opposition parties. Parliamentarians from a number of EU countries have visited Algeria in the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Algerian Foreign Minister in Palermo on 3 June 1998. A group of British MPs may visit Algeria later this year.

  People's Europe '98
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a breakdown of costs for People's Europe '98. [45269]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Taylor) on 1 April 1998,Official Report, column 535.

  Europe Day
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 414, if the European flag will fly from Government buildings on Europe Day when the United Kingdom no longer holds the European Union Presidency. [45323]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Yes.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the new regime in Indonesia concerning(a) civil rights and (b) the United Kingdom's trading policy with Indonesia. [45315]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In my meeting with President Habibie in Jakarta last month, I encouraged him to maintain the momentum of political and economic reforms. The necessary economic and political changes will help to create a more healthy trading environment.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the restoration of air links to Nigeria. [45622]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We last held air service talks with the Nigerian authorities in February 1998 and hope that the new Nigerian Administration will take forward the proposals made at those talks as a matter of priority.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what communication he has had with General Abdulsalam Abubakar; [45650]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the installation of the new Head of State of Nigeria;[45649]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning relations between the United Kingdom and Nigeria; [45652]

  (4) what plans he has to visit Nigeria. [45651]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  General Abdulsalam Alhaji Abubakar was installed as Nigerian Head of State on 9 June. On 12 June we issued a Declaration on behalf of the EU welcoming General Abubakar's call to all Nigerians to join in a process of reconstruction and reconciliation. Nigeria now has an opportunity to move forward in a way which reflects the wish of the Nigerian people in all their diversity including early moves to a democratically elected system of governance. The release of detainees including Chief Abiola will be an important part of that process. We hope that General Abubakar and his team will quickly take the necessary steps to allow Nigeria to resume its rightful place in the international community. The UK is ready to help and respond positively to progress.

  We are in close touch with our EU, Commonwealth and other partners. We are still considering our response. We hope that events in Nigeria will allow the UK to re-establish a close relationship based on our historic ties.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British companies he estimates are currently active in Nigeria. [45653]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There are approximately 70 British companies in Nigeria with equity there, but many others that sell products and services.

  UN Covenants and Conventions
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the UN member states which have not ratified the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. [44822]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the following UN Member States were non-States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the end of May 1998.

  Andorra; Antigua and Barbuda; Bahamas; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Belize; Bhutan; Botswana; Brunei, Dar-es-Salaam; Burkino Faso; China; Comoros; Cook Islands; Cuba; Djibouti; Eritrea; Fiji; Ghana; Haiti; Holy See; Indonesia; Kazakhstan; Kiribati; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Liberia; Liechtenstein; Malaysia; Maldives; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Micronesia, Federated States of; Mozambique; Myanmar; Nauru, Niue; Oman; Pakistan; Palau; Papua New Guinea; Qatar; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Samoa; Sao Tome and Principe; Saudi Arabia; Singapore, South Africa; Swaziland; Tajikistan; Thailand; Tonga; Turkey; Tuvalu; United Arab Emirates; United States of America; Vanuatu.
  This information, which is updated regularly, is also available on the OHCHR's Treaty Bodies Database on the Internet (www.unhchr.ch).

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the UN member states which have not ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [44823]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the following UN Member States were non-States Parties to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment at the end of May 1998.

  Andorra; Angola; Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belgium; Bhutan; Bolivia; Botswana; Brunei; Dar-es-Salaam; Burkino Faso; Central African Republic; Comoros; Congo; Cook Islands; Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Fiji; Gabon; Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guinea-Bissau; Haiti; Holy See; India; Indonesia; Iran; Islamic Republic of Iraq; Ireland; Jamaica; Japan; Kazakhstan; Kiribati; Lao People's Democratic Office; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Madagascar; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Micronesia, Federated States of; Mongolia; Mozambique; Myanmar; Nauru; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Niue; Oman; Pakistan; Palau; Papua New-Guinea; Qatar; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sudan; Surinam; Swaziland; Syrian Arab Republic; Thailand; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu; United Arab Emirates; United Republic of Tanzania; Vanuatu; Vietnam; Zambia, Zimbabwe.
  This information, which is updated regularly, is also available on the OHCHR's Treaty Bodies Database on the Internet (www.unhchr.ch).

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the UN member states which have not ratified the UN Covenant on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. [44824]
  16
  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the following UN Member States were non-States parties to the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.

  Afghanistan; Bahrain; Brunei; Dar-es-Salaam; Cook Islands; Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Djibouti; Holy See; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Kazakhstan; Kiribati; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Micronesia; Federated States of; Monaco; Nauru; Niger; Niue; Oman; Palau; Qatar; San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Saudi Arabia; Solomon Islands; Somalia; Sudan; Swaziland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tonga; Tuvalu; United Arab Emirates; United States of America.
  This information, which is updated regularly, is also available on the OHCHR's Treaty Bodies Database on the Internet (www.unhchr.ch).

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the UN member states which have not ratified the UN Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. [44825]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the following UN Member States were non-States Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

  Andorra; Angola; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Brunei; Dar-es-Salaam; Comoros; Cook Islands; Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Djibouti; Dominica; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Georgia; Grenada; Guinea-Bissau; Honduras; Indonesia; Ireland; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Malaysia; Marshall Islands; Micronesia; Federated States of; Myanmar; Nauru; Niue; Oman; Palau; Paraguay; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Samoa; San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Singapore; South Africa; Thailand; Turkey; Tuvalu; Vanuatu.
  This information, which is updated regularly, is also available on the OHCHR's Treaty Bodies Database on the Internet (www.unhchr.ch).

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the UN member states which have not ratified the UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child. [44826]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the following UN Member States were non-States Parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  Somalia; United States of America.

  This information, which is updated regularly, is also available on the OHCHR's Treaty Bodies Database on the Internet (www.unhchr.ch).

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom will(a) sign and (b) ratify the UN Convention against Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries; and if he will make a statement. [45716]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no plans at present to sign and ratify the International Convention against Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. We have doubts concerning its legal enforceability in the United Kingdom. We are looking at options for national domestic regulation of military companies.

  Brazil
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings Her Majesty's embassy officials have had with political parties in Brazil; and what monitoring he expects to take place of the elections due later this year. [45392]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Embassy officials have regular contact with representatives of broad range of Brazilian political parties. The Embassy follows political developments in Brazil closely, including elections, but we do not plan any formal electoral monitoring.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the Governor of St. Helena implemented the Government's budget proposals without the agreement of the Legislative Council. [45524]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Governor of St. Helena exercised his powers under the Constitution to implement the budget on the advice of the Executive Council. He acted properly to ensure that funds were made available to continue the funding of the Government of St. Helena and the services it provides to the people of the Island.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries Research Services
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much funding his Department provided to the Fisheries Research Services Agency in each of the last five years; and how much is budgeted for 1998–99. [44805]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Fisheries Research Services became an Executive Agency of the Scottish Office on 1 April 1997. Scottish Office funding for the years prior to that date and the two years subsequent is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Total

  1993–94

  13.972

  1994–95

  13.164

  1995–96

  15.552

  1996–97

  22.364

  1997–98

  22.521

  1998–99 estimated

  12.190

  The fluctuations in funding largely reflect capital investment in the new Scotia fisheries research vessel.

  Residential Care
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to review the present threshold for means testing for residential care.[44587]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government have no plans to review the present capital limit of £16,000 above which residents are required to meet the full cost of accommodation from their own resources. A Royal Commission has been set up to consider the system of funding the long-term care of elderly people in the UK and 18
  to recommend how the cost of care should be shared between public funds and private individuals. The means test should therefore be central to the Commission's deliberations.

  Varroa
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 14 December 1997 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what are the results so far of his Department's monitoring of varroa. [44050]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: Since last December, varroa has been identified in the St. Andrews area. All known apiaries within a 5 km radius of the infected premises are currently under movement restrictions.

  Scottish Tourist Board
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Prior Options study of the Scottish Tourist Board which he announced on 30 July 1997 has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [46280]

  Mr. Dewar
  The prior options study undertaken as the first stage of the 5 yearly policy and financial management review of the Scottish Tourist Board has now been completed.

  I have accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the study. The Scottish Tourist Board will therefore continue as the national agency responsible for encouraging the development of the Scottish tourist industry.

  The decision that the Board should remain in being as a non-departmental public body does not, however, denote absence of change. The study also concluded that, while the Board is effective in what it does, there remains scope for improving the type of support it provides and the way in which that support is delivered. A number of specific recommendations have been made which will secure the necessary improvements. Specifically, the changes proposed will help deliver a better quality of service to the Scottish tourist industry by ensuring:
  a more strategic role for the Board covering its marketing, visitor servicing and developments functions;
  better and more effective relations between the Board and its private and public sector partners;
  continued efforts to raise standards within the industry; and
  more emphasis on the better spread of tourism throughout Scotland and throughout the year.

  I firmly believe that the review and its outcome demonstrate a necessary ongoing commitment by this Government not only to the development of Scottish tourism but also to the more efficient and effective delivery of the support provided by my Department through the Scottish Tourist Board.

  I am grateful to those organisations and individuals who responded to the invitation to comment which I issued at the start of this review. The second stage of the review, which will examine systems of financial management and control within the Board, will get underway shortly.
  19
  Copies of the report of the prior options study will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and may be obtained from The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, Area 3-F25, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ.

  Mortality Statistics (Women)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the five main causes of death in each of the last five years for women aged 35 to 54 years indicating the numbers involved in each case. [45809]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The top five causes of death were not quite identical in each of the five years, as is shown in the table.

  Deaths, females aged 35 to 54 years

  ICD9 code1

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Malignant neoplasm of female breast

  1,749

  244

  261

  227

  220

  229

  Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung

  1,629

  105

  110

  114

  116

  104

  Acute myocardial infarction

  4,109

  102

  92

  96

  75

  95

  Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri

  1,809

  56

  46

  44

  36

  41

  Malignant neoplasm of ovary

  1,830

  49

  66

  53

  52

  49

  Subarachnoid haemorrhage

  4,309

  49

  56

  42

  32

  54

  Alcoholic liver damage, unspecified

  5,713

  20

  35

  47

  52

  54

  1World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases—ninth revision

  Scottish Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce the chairman and members of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council; and if he will make a statement. [45193]

  Mr. Wilson
  The post of chairman of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council was advertised earlier this month. Advertisements relating to membership of the council will appear shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the chairman and members of the council when the appropriate appointment procedures have been completed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43326]

  Mr. Morley
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill
  20
  costs for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the cost of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times fur factory farms have been visited so far this year, by county, by officials from the State Veterinary Service. [43709]

  Mr. Morley
  Veterinary Officers of the State Veterinary Service (SVS) have made five welfare inspection visits to fur farms so far this year—four in Lancashire and one in Hampshire. In addition, licensed fur farms are visited twice a year by officials from the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency to ensure compliance with the security requirements of the Mink Keeping Regulations 1976. The current fee for a licence is£630.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will evaluate the impact of the privatisation of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service on the quality and range of advice available to farmers. [44498]

  Mr. Morley
  No, I do not think such an analysis is necessary.

  However, I understand that ADAS continues to provide the same research, consultancy and laboratory services that it provided when it was an Agency to the Department and should be well placed to advise farmers on a wide range of agriculture issues both in the UK and overseas.

  Hunt Kennels
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those hunt kennels which have been reported to his Department as having unsatisfactory SRM surveillance audits during(a) 1997 and (b) 1998; and if he will make a statement on the resultant health risk to animals. [44795]

  Mr. Rooker
  Those hunt kennels reported as having unsatisfactory surveillance visits in respect of Specified Risk Material legislation during(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 (up to 27 May) are listed.

  The fact that failures have occurred does not necessarily mean that there has been a risk either to animal or to public health. Visits may be recorded as unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, including minor, technical and short-lived problems, for example inadequate record keeping. Following an unsatisfactory visit the operator of the premises is required to take immediate remedial action. A further unannounced visit is made shortly afterwards to check that this has been carried out satisfactorily.
  21
  Unsatisfactory Visits To Hunt Kennels–1997

  Sandhurst and Aldershot Beagles

  Wishton Cottage

  RMA Sandhurst

  Camberley

  Surrey

  Puckeridge Hunt

  Brent Pelham Hall

  Buntingford

  Hertfordshire

  Holderness Hunt Kennels

  Main Street

  Etton

  Beverley

  North Humberside

  HU17 7PG

  Chiddingfold Leconfield and Cowdray Foxhounds

  Hunt Kennels

  Petworth

  West Sussex

  Bramham Moor Hunt Kennels

  Hope Hall

  Bramham Moor

  Bramham, Boston Spa

  West Yorkshire

  Pennine Foxhounds

  Upper Snape Farm

  Harder Mill Road

  Meltham, Huddersfield

  West Yorkshire

  Llangibby Foxhounds

  Hunt Kennels

  LLangibby

  Usk

  Gwent

  Belvoir Hunt Kennels

  Woolsthorpe by Belvoir

  Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  NG31 6QG

  The Kennels

  Brocklesby Park

  Habrough

  South Humberside

  DN37 8PJ

  Zetland Hunt Kennels

  The Kennels

  Aldborough St. John

  Richmond

  North Yorkshire

  22

  Tedworth Foxhounds

  The Kennels

  Westcourt

  Burbage, Marlborough

  Wiltshire SN8 3BW

  Stevenstone Foxhounds

  The Old Kennels

  Torrington Station

  Torrington

  Devon

  Pentyrch Hunt Kennels

  The Kennels

  Twyncoed Road

  Pentyrch, Cardiff

  West Glamorgan

  Modbury Harriers

  The Kennels Flete

  Ermington

  Ivybridge

  Devon

  Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds

  The Kennels

  Exford

  Minehead

  Somerset

  Cheshire Forest Hunt Kennels

  Peover Park

  Lower Peover

  Knutsford

  Cheshire

  Exmoor Foxhounds

  The Kennels

  Balewater, Simonsbath

  Minehead

  Somerset

  Axe Vale Harriers

  Little Downhayne

  Colyton

  Devon

  Vale of Lune Harriers

  The Kennels

  Deer Park Lane

  Hornby

  Lancaster LA2 8LF

  York and Ainsty (South) Hunt

  The Gate House

  Market Weighton Road

  North Duffield

  Selby

  23

  Avon Vale Foxhounds

  Spye Park

  Lacock

  Wiltshire

  East Lincolnshire Hare Hounds

  Oakdene, Hanby Lane

  Welton-le-Marsh

  Spilsby

  Lincolnshire PE23 5TH

  South Shropshire Hunt

  Annscroft

  Shrewsbury

  Shropshire

  SY5 8AA

  Tiverton Staghounds

  Mouseberry Farm

  East Worlington

  Crediton

  Devon EX17 4SW

  Warwickshire Hunt Kennels

  Little Kineton

  Warwickshire

  Vale of Aylesbury Hunt

  Dodds Charity

  Kimblewick

  Aylesbury

  Buckinghamshire HP17 8SX

  Vale of Clettwr Hunt

  Blaenpant Kennels

  Pencader

  Carms

  Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Foxhounds

  The Kennels

  Charlton Hawthorne

  Sherbourne

  Dorset DT9 4NL

  Blankney Foxhounds

  Blankney

  Lincoln

  Tegryn Farmers Hunt

  Star Mill

  Clydey

  Llanfyrnach

  Warreston Kennels

  Cosheston

  Pembroke

  Pembrokeshire

  Airedale Beagles

  Cragg Top Farm

  24

  Light Bank Lane

  Silsden

  Keighley

  West Yorkshire BD20 ONL

  Carmarthen Hunt

  The Kennels

  Travellers Rest

  Carmarthen

  Isle of Wedmore Draghounds

  Apple Acre

  Crickham

  Wedmore

  Somerset BS28 4JT

  South Herefords Hunt Kennels

  The Kennels

  Wormelow

  Herefordshire

  Woodland Pytchley Hunt Kennels

  Kennel Hill

  Brigstock

  Northants

  Llandeilo Hunt

  Fron Haul

  Whitemill

  Carmarthenshire

  Unsatisfactory Visits—Hunt Kennels 1998

  East Lincs Hare Hounds

  Oakdene, Hanby Lane

  Welton-le-Marsh

  Spilsby

  Lincolnshire PE23 5TH

  Enfield Chase Hunt

  Birch Farm

  White Stubbs Lane

  Broxbourne

  Hertfordshire

  The Pytchley Hunt

  Station Road

  Brixworth

  Northants

  Bicester/Whaddon Chase

  Stratton Audley

  Bicester

  Oxon

  OX6 9BT

  Curre Foxhounds Hunt Kennel

  Itton

  Chepstow

  Gwent

  25

  Westerby Basset Hounds

  Walcote Road

  South Kilworth

  Leicester

  York and Ainsty (South) Hunt

  The Gate House

  Market Weighton Road

  North Duffield

  Selby

  Amman Valley Hunt

  Tirbach

  Garnant Ammanford

  Carmarthenshire

  Essex Farmers Hunt

  Althorne Lodge

  Althorne

  Maldon

  Essex

  Blankney Foxhounds

  Blankney

  Lincoln

  Carmarthenshire Hunt Kennels

  Travellers Rest

  Carmarthen

  Ledbury Hunt

  The Kennels

  Eggs Tump

  Bromsberrow

  Gloucestershire

  Isle of Wedmore Draghounds

  Apple Acre

  Crickham

  Wedmore

  Somerset BS28 4JT

  Bicester/Whaddon Chase

  Stratton Audley

  Bicester

  Oxon

  OX6 9BT

  Bonnie Mount Hunt Kennels

  Edenhall

  Penrith

  Cumbria

  The Fernie Hunt

  Great Bowden

  Leicestershire

  LE16 7HJ

  Cheshire Forest Hunt Kennels

  Peover park

  26

  Lower Peover

  Knutsford

  Cheshire

  Cotswold Hunt

  Ossage Farm

  Andoversford

  Cheltenham

  Gloucestershire GL54 4LQ

  Cottesmore Hunt Kennels

  Ashwell Road

  Oakham

  Leicestershire

  LEIS 7QW

  The Warwickshire Hunt Kennels

  Little Kineton

  Warwickshire

  Royal Artillery Foxhounds

  Bulford Camp

  Bulford

  Salisbury

  Wiltshire

  Quarantine
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many places are available for animals in quarantine establishments inspected by his Department. [44940]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are 4,033 quarantine places in 73 authorised quarantine premises currently authorised and inspected by this Department. It is possible for up to three animals of the same species, which originated from the same owner to share an individual unit, subject to the agreement of this Department.

  There are, furthermore, 114 research premises and 49 zoological premises authorised to hold a variety of rabies susceptible mammals. These are not authorised on the basis of individual places.

  Animal Feed (Antibiotics)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 June 1998,Official Report, column 494, on antibiotics in animal feed and the recommendations of the Agriculture Committee, if he will seek to secure a EU-wide ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in farming. [45368]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are giving careful consideration to recommendations made by the Agriculture Select Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which concern the use of antibiotic growth promoters. The Government are advised on this issue by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC), and the VPC's advice will inform the Government's position in continuing EU discussions on the safety of growth promoters.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made recently of the state of fish stocks within UK coastal waters; and if he will make a statement. [45514]

  Mr. Morley
  The MAFF Executive Agency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), is responsible for monitoring and assessing the level of the Blackwater herring stock, which occurs wholly within UK territorial waters, and provides advice to the Department each year on the total allowable catch (TAC) and other management measures.

  In addition, CEFAS routinely monitors the level of 31 fish stocks occurring inside and outside UK waters and provides detailed advice on their size composition to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which is responsible for preparing scientific advice on the level of fishing that stocks can sustain.

  Rural Charter
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the document, Rural Charter, a copy of which has been sent to him. [45689]

  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Charter circulated by the National Farmers' Union draws attention to the economic difficulties currently being faced by the farming and allied industries. The Government recognise the concerns of farmers and those allied trades related to agriculture and believe that the countryside is a great national asset, a part of our national heritage which calls for careful stewardship. The Government are committed to ensuring that their policies take rural concerns into account and recognise the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas. Our policies for agriculture, health, education, transport and employment all benefit people in rural areas.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Fisheries Council held on 8 June. [45659]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 658–59.

  Arable Area Aid
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the sums paid in the EU in respect of area payments in 1997; and what is the basic purpose of such payments. [45530]

  Mr. Rooker
  The amount paid by the European Union on arable area aid payments in the 1997 Budget year was 16,552 million ecu (£12,031 million). The purpose of these payments is to compensate arable producers for the reductions in cereal support prices since 1992.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was spent in the EU in the most recent annual period for which figures are available on set-aside payments. [45528]
  28
  Mr. Rooker
  The amount paid by the European Union as arable area aid on set-aside land in the 1997 Budget year was 1,904 million ecu (£1,384 million).

  Radioactive Fallout
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hill farmers are currently affected by restrictions on the sale of produce due to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. [46011]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ten hill farms in Cumbria are currently affected by restrictions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 as a result of the Chernobyl accident. In addition, there are about 359 farms in Wales, 23 farms in Scotland and 45 farms in Northern Ireland also affected by restrictions. The movement, sale and slaughter of sheep from these farms only are affected.

  Meat Labelling
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the branding of meat produced in the Republic of Ireland as Irish for retail sale in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the rest of the European Union. [45785]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under EC Regulation 820/97, which comes fully into force on 1 July and which applies uniformly in all Member States, all beef labelled "Irish" must have come from animals born, raised and slaughtered in Ireland.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the branding of domestically produced meat as British Meat for retail sale in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the rest of the European Union. [45784]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under EC Regulation 820/97, which comes fully into force on 1 July and which applies uniformly in all Member States, all beef labelled "British" must have come from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the United Kingdom.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to control the rabbit population. [45837]

  Mr. Morley
  Section 1 of the Pests Act 1954 places a continuing obligation on occupiers of land designated as rabbit clearance areas to control rabbits harboured on their land. The current Rabbit Clearance Order, issued in 1972, covers the whole of England and Wales, excluding the City of London, the Isles of Scilly and Skokholm Island. The Minister has powers under section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947 to require action to be taken where occupiers are failing to meet their obligations under the 1954 Act. Where necessary these powers are used.

  The Ministry is aware of the damage that rabbits can cause and keeps its policy on rabbit control under continual review. The Ministry is also funding R&D to establish improved methods for cost-effective and humane control of rabbits.

  Subsidies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the basic purpose of the EU in spending £4,565,000,000 on the subsidising of food exports in 1997; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have for promoting reforms within the EU to reduce this level of public expenditure. [45527]

  Mr. Rooker
  Export subsidies facilitate exports from the EU of food and agricultural commodities whose prices are higher within the internal EU market than those attainable on world markets because of CAP price support policies. The Government are supporting Commission proposals to reduce CAP support prices and thus reduce the need for export subsidies.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each of the subsidies and other payments made to land owners and farmers in 1997; what amount was spent on each subsidy; and what is the basic purpose of each subsidy. [45531]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimates of expenditure in 1997–98 on support measures under the Common Agricultural Policy are provided in the Departmental Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Such measures are formulated in support of the objectives of the CAP, as laid down in the Treaty of Rome.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total amounts of fruit and vegetables in respect of which £213,000,000 was spent in 1997 on the process of market withdrawal; and if he will publish information on the subsidies paid for the destruction of such fruit and vegetables. [45529]

  Mr. Rooker
  Although the expenditure figure for the 1997 budgetary year is available, the corresponding figure for the level of fruit and vegetable withdrawals is not. However, the total amount withdrawn during the 1996–97 marketing year was 1,786,406 tonnes.

  The annual levels of withdrawal compensation are set out in Annex V of Council Regulation 2200/96 (Official Journal of the European Communities, L297, Volume 39 of 21 November 1996).

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to ensure that soya, from supplies unsegregated between that which is genetically modified and that which is not, which is used in food, is labelled to reflect this. [46077]

  Mr. Rooker
  In accordance with EC Regulation 1139/98, all foods which contain, or which are likely to contain, genetically modified soya ingredients must be clearly labelled to indicate the presence of such material. This Regulation will come into effect on 1 September 1998. In the meantime, food manufacturers and retailers are voluntarily labelling foods with this information.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43324]

  Angela Eagle
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Mr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill costs for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the cost of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on the use of suburban railway routes for the movement of freight.[44705]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government want to see more freight go by rail, in order to reduce pollution and congestion on the roads. We have doubled the money spent on freight grants, to £30 million for 1997–98, and have increased the budget for 1998£99 to £40 million. Our White Paper on Integrated Transport Policy will consider further measures to encourage rail freight.

  Development of the rail network to accommodate freight traffic must be made in the light of its environmental impacts. Railtrack is committed, through its Environmental Policy Statement, to pursuing the "best practicable environmental option" in all its operations. It aims to achieve this through assessment of environmental impacts of proposals and minimising any adverse impacts which arise.

  Diabetic Drivers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow(a) new and (b) recently diagnosed diabetic drivers to hold C1 licences for employment purposes. [44651]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The Honorary Advisory Panel on Diabetes and Driving has advised against such provision and the Government have accepted this advice. The Panel will continue to keep the situation under
  31
  review, however, and would no doubt make revised recommendations if they judged that relaxation of this restriction would no longer jeopardise road safety.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to apply legislation retrospectively to allow those C1 licence holders who have recently lost their licences to drive small lorries and minibuses in the course of their employment. [44650]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is the intention that the proposed scheme to allow insulin-treated diabetic drivers to renew entitlement to drive CI vehicles (lorries between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes), originally obtained with their car licence, if they meet the employment and medical criteria, would apply, to those who have lost the C1 entitlement since 1 January of this year as a result of suffering from diabetes treated by insulin.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the operational mechanism that will allow existing C1 licence holders to renew their entitlement to drive C1 vehicles in the course of their employment. [44423]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review legislation allowing C1 licence holders who drive small lorries and minibuses in the course of their employment to renew their licences subject to annual health checks. [44682]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A public consultation began on 9 June on the proposal to allow insulin-treated diabetic drivers who hold or have held entitlement to drive C1 vehicles by virtue of their car licence to renew such entitlement if they meet the employment and medical criteria.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) backdate to 1 January the application of the decision to make the ban on certain C1 licence holders who have insulin-treated diabetes subject to annual health checks, (b) introduce a similar provision for new drivers and those recently diagnosed and (c) review the legislation to ensure parity of treatment for all groups affected by the ban. [45263]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). The Government have no plans to extend the proposed scheme to other drivers, though the legislation is kept under regular review.

  Recycling (PVC)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to take to promote greater recycling of pvc. [44807]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to an increased level of recycling, including that of PVC. We are currently reviewing our national waste strategy, which is aimed at reducing the amount of waste produced and ensuring the environmentally sound management of those wastes. Plastic waste will be covered under the new strategy.
  32
  We have held discussions with a number of organisations involved in plastics recycling to ascertain what further measures can be taken by both industry and Government to increase recycling.

  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 aim to double the amount of packaging waste (including plastics) recovered to around 50 per cent. by 2001. While the Regulations set no specific targets for the recycling of plastics, in 1996 over 10,000 tonnes of post-use PVC was recycled in the UK.

  In addition, there is a significant amount of work being undertaken in a number of sectors to promote the recycling of products containing PVC, for example cable sheathing and insulation, plastic bottles, computer parts, and supermarket display trays.

  Nuclear Deterrence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 218, on what basis he stated that CND supported unilateral and multilateral disarmament. [43623]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 413. I consider the matter closed.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what system of monitoring is in place for the testing of(a) genetically modified organisms and (b) the glufosinate selective project; and if he will make a statement. [43978]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: All the consents to release genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for testing carry an obligation on the part of the consent holder to monitor the release site. The monitoring period usually extends for one or two years after termination of the trial but it could extend further if necessary. Full reports on the monitoring are sent to my Department.

  The Glufosinate Selective project refers to the development of genetically modified plants by the company AgrEvo. These plants are able to tolerate applications of glufosinate ammonium herbicides. Testing of these plants is covered by current GMO release legislation and is subject to the monitoring conditions set out above.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet the costs incurred by local planning authorities resulting from planning inquiries ordered by his Department into motorway service area applications. [44503]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. Like all other parties, local planning authorities are responsible for meeting their own expenses in participating in planning inquiries.

  A30
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in planning the upgrading of the A30 to dual carriageway between Bodmin and Indian Queens. [44963]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Future progress on the A30 Bodmin to Indian Queens Improvement scheme is dependent on the outcome of the Roads Review. We are currently working hard to complete the review and hope to publish the results later this year.

  A38 Dobwalls Bypass
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of constructing the A38 Dobwalls bypass in Cornwall. [45089]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Future progress on the A38 Dobwalls Bypass is dependent on the outcome of the Roads Review. We are currently working hard to complete the review and hope to publish the results later this year.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for 1997–98(a) the sums of housing benefit paid by and (b) the Government subsidy for housing benefit paid to each authority, indicating for each authority the percentage of average rent, accounted for by housing benefit subsidy from the housing revenue account. [44966]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is contained in tables which I have placed in the Library.

  Railway Lines
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of former colliery track is owned by Railtrack; and what agreement is required from Railtrack for any re-use. [45100]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information on the proportion of former colliery track owned by Railtrack is not readily available. The decision as to whether former colliery track should be re-used is a commercial matter for Railtrack.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to help bring back into use former colliery railtracks and similar disused lines; and what representations he has received about such re-use utilising new technology. [45099]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Almost all lines formerly owned by BR (including former colliery lines) are the subject of discussions about transfer to local authorities or railway preservation societies, or are about to be leased to Sustrans, the cycling charity, for the National Cycle Network (with the potential for future rail use preserved).

  The Secretary of State has received no representations about re-use of such lines utilising new technology.

  Sewage Treatment
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the approach he intends to take with(a) the Environment Agency, (b) OFWAT and (c) the water companies to comply with the European Commission's year 2000 deadline for the provision of at least secondary sewage treatment for all coastal discharges. [45119]

  Angela Eagle
  The EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requires the provision of secondary sewage treatment by the end of the year 2000 for those coastal discharges with a population equivalent of 15,000 or more, except in cases where there is flexibility to provide primary treatment or where a more stringent level of treatment is required. We are giving further consideration to the Government's policy options in the use of this flexibility.

  Where deadlines apply, we will expect the water companies to meet these, as allowed for under investment plans agreed by OFWAT. Where deadlines are not met, the Environment Agency will take the appropriate enforcement action, in the light of the circumstances in each case and its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will respond to OFWAT's request for ministerial guidance on providing sewage treatment without ministerial endorsement of derogation applications to install plant below European Union requirements; [45144]

  (2) if he will direct OFWAT to require water companies to meet the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment and the Bathing Water Quality directives without (a) derogation and (b) secondary treatment; [45150]

  (3) how many sewage treatment derogations he has approved for forwarding to the European Union. [45146]

  Angela Eagle
  We propose to respond during the summer to OFWAT's request for guidance on the environmental obligations to be placed on water companies in England and Wales, as part of the current Periodic Review of water company price limits from 2000–05.

  There have been no applications to the European Commission for derogations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive to provide less than secondary treatment for discharges in England. Any such applications would need to meet the requirements of the Directive.

  The Bathing Water Directive does not specify the level of sewage treatment necessary to meet the required water quality standards. Therefore the question of derogation from any particular treatment level does not arise.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the framework of regulation and the progress towards meeting European Union directives on treatment of sewage in coastal discharges. [45152]

  Angela Eagle
  Progress towards meeting the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive is reviewed every two years in order to update
  35
  the implementation programme for the European Commission. We are considering the Government's policy options in relation to the use of the flexibility under the Directive to determine sewage treatment levels.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will consult OFWAT about the letter of 29 May from Councillor Derek Whittaker, Leader of Arun District Council, asking for direct intervention in respect of the Arun Campaign for Cleaner Seas; [45143]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his meeting with Councillor Derek Whittaker of Arun District Council on 19 May and on subsequent representations on secondary sewage treatment on the Sussex coast. [45153]

  Angela Eagle
  In preparing the response to OFWAT's request for guidance on environmental obligations to be placed on water companies in England and Wales, as part of the current Periodic Review of water company price limits from 2000–05, we will take into account the points made by Councillor Derek Whittaker, the Leader of Arun District Council, in his meeting with the Minister for the Environment on 19 May and in his subsequent letter of 29 May.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what standards of sewage treatment he requires the Environment Agency to demand for coastal areas; [45151]

  (2) what is his policy towards ensuring compliance by water companies with European Union sewage treatment requirements for coastal discharges. [45149]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency will set discharge consents on a case by case basis, which will require water company discharges to meet the standards of all relevant domestic and European legislation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policy he intends to adopt with(a) the Environment Agency, (b) OFWAT and (c) water companies to comply with the European Commission's 2000 deadline for the provision of secondary or higher sewage treatment for coastal discharge. [45148]

  Angela Eagle
  The EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requires the provision of secondary sewage treatment by the end of the year 2000 for those coastal discharges with a population equivalent of 15,000 or more, except in cases where there is flexibility to provide primary treatment or where a more stringent level of treatment is required. We are giving further consideration to the Government's policy options in the use of this flexibility.

  Where deadlines apply, we will expect the water companies to meet these, as allowed for under investment plans agreed by OFWAT. Where deadlines are not met, the Environment Agency will take the appropriate enforcement action, in the light of the circumstances in each case and its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received which oppose the 36
  Campaign for Cleaner Seas and Arun District Council's request for more than basic treatment of sewage on the Sussex coast. [45145]

  Angela Eagle
  None.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in revising Circular 18/94 in relation to the Police and Criminal Justice Act 1994; and when he expects to make an announcement about a revised circular. [44942]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has no plans to revise Circular 18/94 "Gypsy Sites Policy and Unauthorised Camping".

  The reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing on 22 January 1998, Official Report, column 614, referred to a research project commissioned by my Department to consolidate existing good practice for local authorities in dealing with unauthorised camping. We will be consulting on a draft of the good practice shortly, with a view to launching it on 29 October at a conference organised by the National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers in Coventry. The good practice will be independent of, but complementary to, the advice in Circular 18/94.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 April 1998,Official Report, column 85, when he expects to write to the hon. Member for Torbay on traffic congestion measures. [44947]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I wrote to the hon. Member on Thursday 11 June.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the estimated numbers of cars running on(a) leaded and (b) unleaded petrol in 1997–98; and what are the projected figures for 1998–99. [44938]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Exact figures are not available. During the 1980s there was a steady transition from cars designed to use leaded petrol to those capable of using unleaded petrol. Petrol cars sold for first use on or after 1 April 1991 were required to be designed and constructed to use unleaded petrol.

  Since January 1993 all petrol cars have had to meet emission standards defined by EC directive 91/441/EEC. The practical implication of this is that petrol cars sold since then are fitted with three way catalytic converters which require exclusive use of unleaded fuel.

  Assuming a steady increase in the proportion of new cars capable of using unleaded petrol from none in 1980 to all cars in 1991 and later, it is estimated that, at the end of 1997, about 80 per cent. or 16.5 million out of a total of 20.4 million licensed petrol driver cars are capable of running on unleaded fuel.
  37
  Formal projections of these statistics for 1998–99 have not been made. However, in the past five years approximately 1.2 million petrol motorcars have been scrapped each year, predominantly from the older leaded petrol using sector, and 1.6 million petrol cars using unleaded fuel added to the stock each year.

  Discharges to Water
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 19 December 1997,Official Report, columns 358–59, on pollution incidents and discharges to water in excess of permitted limits, if he will provide the figures for the whole of 1997. [44411]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]The number of discharges which exceeded their consented limits during 1997 is set out by quarter as follows:

  Number

  January-March

  1,447

  April-June

  1,023

  July-September

  966

  October-December

  1,281

  Total For 1997

  4,717

  In considering whether or not to prosecute against a breach of consent, the Agency takes into account a number of factors including the seriousness of the breach and whether it is a repeated breach. The majority of breaches were not serious in nature and did not cause any significant environmental damage. In most cases, the breaches were quickly rectified since most dischargers, on being notified of a failed sample, took prompt action to remedy matters.

  In 1997, the Agency brought 65 prosecutions under section 85(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991 against breaches of consent. Of these, 61 were successful, including 1 prosecution which resulted in a prison sentence of 2 months. The fines imposed in 1997 ranged from £440 to £12,000.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 222, if he will request the Highways Agency to produce forecasts of PM10 levels from all sources in the Egham area in (i) 2005 and (ii) 2010 assuming (a) the 10–12 lane widening scheme for the M25 is implemented and (b) the motorway is not widened. [44872]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]As part of the roads review, the Highways Agency is assessing the contribution of schemes towards anticipated levels of PM10 in 2005, the relevant year for the achievement of the National Air Quality Strategy objective. Their assessment includes a consideration of PM10 emissions from other sources. The Highways Agency is not undertaking an assessment for 2010, since they expect the levels to be lower than in 2005.
  38
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation he has made of the relative levels of air pollution in London in May 1997 and May 1998; and if he will make a statement. [45345]

  Angela Eagle
  A comparison of May 1997 ratified data with May 1998 provisional data shows that there are only three pollutants where the National Air Quality Standards were breached during these months. These were ozone, sulphur dioxide and PM10 particular matter.

  May 1998 provisionally had more exceedences of the standards than May 1997. This is most likely to be due to the prevailing meteorological conditions in 1998 being different to those in 1997. The relatively high temperatures and light easterly or south-easterly winds, which occurred during May 1998, are generally associated with elevated levels of pollutants in the spring and summer months.

  Exceedences of the National Air Quality Strategy standard for each pollutant in May occurred on the following number of days:

  Pollutant

  1997 Number of days

  1998 Number of days

  Ozone

  8

  15

  Sulphur dioxide

  1

  2

  PM10

  0

  5

  The 1998 figures may be adjusted before they become ratified during the quality control and quality assurance procedure.

  The standards referred to here are:

  Pollutant

  Ozone

  50ppb as an 8-hour running mean

  Sulphur dioxide

  100ppb as a 15-minute mean

  PM10

  50 gm3 as a running 24 hour mean

  Cycling
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total mileage of cycle track adjacent to roads in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1997; and what estimate he has made of the mileage of cycle track needed in the United Kingdom to meet his road safety requirements. [45375]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Statistics relating to the number and mileage of cycle tracks in the United Kingdom are not collected centrally. The responsibility for cycle facilities lies primarily with individual local highway authorities. Assessments of what cycle tracks and other cycle facilities are needed to enhance the safety of cyclists are for highway authorities to make in the light of local circumstances including road safety considerations.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of designated cycle routes there were in(a) Worcester City and (b) Worcestershire in each of the years 1979 to 1997. [45621]
  39
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There were 28.9 km of dedicated cycleway in Worcester District and 34.149 km in Worcestershire County area in July 1997. The total length of on-road cycleway in the county area was 3.4 km which lay entirely within Worcester District. Monitoring by the County Council started in July 1997 and there are no figures available prior to that date.

  Lorries
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 219, on lorries, if enforcement staff are able to use the documentation carried by drivers to enforce the restriction on the use of 5 axle lorries weighing 40 tonnes to international traffic. [45417]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As indicated in my answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 219, enforcement issues will be taken into account when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister reaches his decision on whether to allow such lorries to operate domestically, as well as internationally, in the UK.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reasons underlay his decision to refuse Government bridging loans to support Objective 2 Structural Fund 1994–1996 programmes in the North East of England in the year 1998–99. [44904]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]We act as the agent of the European Union in paying European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) grants. We make these payments when the money is received from the EU, thus ensuring that the timing of the payments does not have an unfavourable impact on public finances. ERDF grant for the 1994–96 Objective 2 programmes in the North East of England is therefore continuing to be paid from the funds provided by the EC and in accordance with any decision on payment priority taken by the North East Programme Monitoring Committee. However I am aware that the wait for EU funds is causing difficulties and we are looking into ways in which Structural Fund grants can be paid as promptly as possible.

  Ecolabelling
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the relaunch of the European Communities ecolabel award system. [45324]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government would like to see the Community's voluntary ecolabelling scheme make greater inroads within the European market. The existing scheme, launched in 1992, has unfortunately been slow to take off, at the same time as national labelling schemes have been developing more strongly in some member states. The European Commission has submitted a Proposal for revising the EC Regulation which set up the present scheme, but some important elements of this Proposal 40
  have not found general agreement. The UK Presidency has tabled a discussion of this subject at the Council of Ministers on 16/17 June, which it is hoped will point a way forward on the revision of the ecolabelling scheme, in the wider context of policy for improving the environmental performance of consumer products.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 413, about correspondence with the hon. Member for New Forest, East, on how many occasions he has responded to a letter from an hon. Member by way of a written answer to a parliamentary question tabled in pursuance of an answer to that letter. [45265]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 413. I consider the matter closed.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Rough Sleepers Initiative in tackling the problem of homelessness in Greater London; and what plans he has further to improve the initiative. [45298]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Rough Sleepers Initiative which began in 1990 has been successful in reducing the numbers of rough sleepers in main areas of central London. Single night head counts of people sleeping rough in central London undertaken by voluntary organisations are down, from estimates of more than 1,000 before the Initiative, to less than 300 on any one night in the central London areas surveyed since 1992. Successive phases of the Initiative have been evaluated by independent researchers and their findings taken into account in developing action to tackle rough sleeping. However more needs to be done if we are to meet our objective of reducing the level of rough sleeping to as near zero as possible.

  The third phase of the RSI is due to end in March 1999. As yet, no decisions have been taken on what should follow, although an independent evaluation is under way. In addition, the Social Exclusion Unit have been considering the issue of rough sleeping and have reported to the Prime Minister. I expect their findings to be made public within the next few weeks.

  River Eden
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many storm overflows allow untreated sewage to pass into the River Eden; if he will list their locations; and what proposals North West Water has made to improve the situation over the next five years. [45372]

  Angela Eagle
  There are 31 storm water overflows that have outfalls affecting the River Eden. The table shows the location of the outfalls by name and national grid reference.
  41
  Within North West Water's current Asset Management Plan 2 (AMP2), which runs for five years from March 1995, two unsatisfactory storm overflows at Strand Road, Carlisle were abandoned and replaced with one of modern design in 1997. There are currently two storm water overflows that are considered unsatisfactory: improvements to the inlet works overflow at Carlisle waste water treatment works are programmed within the remaining period of AMP2; the remaining unsatisfactory storm water overflow has been identified by the Environment Agency for inclusion within North West Water's AMP3 programme which runs for five years from March 2000. North West Water's programme under AMP3 has yet to be finalised.

  No.

  Location by name

  Discharge area

  Grid reference

  1

  Armathwaite Castle pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 5062 4598

  2

  Etterby Terrace

  River Eden, Etterby Tributary

  NY 3963 5705

  3

  Rickergate opposite Civic Centre

  River Eden

  NY 4006 5654

  4

  Bitts Park, adjacent to tennis courts

  River Eden

  NY 3987 5647

  5

  Cargo, adjacent sewage treatment works

  River Eden

  NY 3599 5885

  6

  Great Corby, adjacent syphon under River Eden

  River Eden

  NY 4678 5516

  7

  Stanwix/Stainton sewers

  River Eden

  NY 3805 5652

  8

  Rickerby Park/18 Brampton Road

  River Eden

  NY 4055 5698

  9

  Wetheral, adjacent Ferry Hill House

  River Eden

  NY 4692 5439

  10

  Low Crosby pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 4458 5930

  11

  Little Corby pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 4765 5734

  12

  Newby East pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 4750 5805

  13

  Warwick on Eden pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 4696 5666

  14

  Sands pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 4021 5657

  15

  Devonshire Terrace

  River Eden

  NY 4005 5660

  16

  Trinity School/Strand Road

  River Eden

  NY 4086 5637

  17

  The College, manhole Croft Close, Kirkoswald

  River Eden/Raven Beck

  NY 5534 4115

  18

  Adjacent, Temple Sowerby pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 6125 2709

  19

  The Sands, Appleby

  River Eden

  NY 6842 2055

  20

  Tunnel end before works, Appleby

  River Eden

  NY 6774 2077

  21

  Manhole behind Lager's Store, Lazonby

  River Eden

  NY 5471 3959

  22

  2nd field before works, Langwathby

  River Eden

  NY 5657 3416

  23

  Holme & Chapel Street, Appleby

  River Eden

  NY 6815 2020

  24

  Winton sewage pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 7760 1050

  25

  Lazonby pumping station

  River Eden

  NY 5516 3998

  26

  Stenkrith Bridge, Kirkby Stephen

  River Eden

  NY 7730 0747

  27

  Franks Bridge, Kirkby Stephen

  River Eden

  NY 7762 0871

  28

  Eastfield Bridge, Kirkby Stephen

  River Eden

  NY 7715 1044

  29

  Appleby, Cumbria

  River Eden

  NY 6766 2084

  30

  Front garden of the flats, Armathwaite

  River Eden

  NY 5074 4610

  31

  Carlisle sewage treatment works inlet overflow

  River Eden

  NY 3847 5652

  Vehicle Salvage (Rebuilt Cars)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to legislate to prevent cars from being rebuilt from remnants of vehicles involved in accidents. [45161]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans at present to introduce such legislation. We believe that the voluntary Code of Practice on the disposal of vehicle salvage introduced by the motor insurance industry a few years ago is helping to ensure that very seriously accident damaged vehicles are not returned to the road. However, we will keep the possible need for additional regulation in this area under review.

  Cruising Licences
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in relation to British Waterways' intention to increase the costs of the permanent cruising licence from 1 August; and if he will make a statement. [45395]

  Angela Eagle
  I have received several letters and representations from some waterway user groups. British Waterways announced on 9 June that it was withdrawing its proposal to introduce a high intensity use cruising licence. It will be discussing with user groups options and ideas for addressing the issue of private vessels that make a higher use of the waterways network.

  Nuclear Material (Transportation)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many spent fuel flasks sent to BNFL's Sellafield plant by United Kingdom or overseas customers in the last three years have had levels of surface contamination over the regulatory limit of 4 Bq/cm2; how many empty spent fuel flasks being returned from Sellafield to its customers have had levels of surface contamination above this limit; what levels of contamination have been detected in each of these flasks; which customers were involved; when he was first informed that regulatory limits were being exceeded; and what action he has taken. [45036]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]UK operators measure non-fixed surface contamination on spent fuel flasks by wiping a large number (typically ~60 on fuel flasks used by UK power stations) of discrete areas of the surface with swabs and measuring and recording the radioactivity removed by the swab in terms of Derived Working Levels (DWLs). 1 DWL corresponds to 4Bq/cm2 when certain pessimistic assumptions (that only 10 per cent. of available non-fixed contamination is picked up by the swab and that exactly 300 cm2 has been wiped). In practice swab pick-up may exceed ten per cent. and the area wiped may exceed 300 cm2 and thus DWL measurements may overestimate the true contamination by a factor of up to 10. Any reading exceeding of 1 DWL is recorded.

  Between January 1995 and the end of the first quarter 1998, 11 flasks arrived at Sellafield from UK power stations with in excess of 1 DWL of non-fixed contamination on one or more areas. During the same

  43
  period 42 empty flasks were recorded as arriving at UK power stations from Sellafield with in excess of 1 DWL of non-fixed contamination on one or more areas.

  Four incidences of flasks with contamination in excess of 1 DWL were recorded on flasks arriving at Barrow or Dunkirk from European power stations, en-route to Sellafield. However, these flasks were cleaned on discovery and no contamination in excess of 1 DWL was subsequently recorded on arrival at Sellafield. Information is not available on the monitoring of ex-Sellafield empty flasks arriving at European power stations. However, 8 incidences are recorded of non-fixed contamination in excess of 1 DWL at Barrow or Dunkirk.

  In none of the above cases were there any significant radiological consequences to workers or the general public.

  To put these figures into perspective, there were a total of ~5,400 shipments to and from UK power stations and ~300 to and from European power stations during this period.

  There were no incidences of contamination in excess of 1 DWL on the 162 flask shipments to and from Japan during the three years in question. Data are not available of the results of monitoring on arrival of empty flasks in Japan.

  In the majority of cases when in excess of 1 DWL was recorded the actual levels would be below 4Bq/cm2 due to the pessimistic method of assessing non-fixed contamination. Only when in excess of 10 DWL is recorded is there a reasonable chance that the actual non-fixed contamination level may exceed 4 Bq/cm2. This occurred on four occasions for UK shipments and on three occasions for European shipments during the period in question.

  The Department in co-operation with the Health and Safety Executive has published instances of non-fixed contamination in excess of 10 DWLs arising on domestic spent fuel flasks annually since 1995.

  One event in each of the years 19951, 19962 has been reported and one will be recorded in the 1997 review (to be published).

  To summarise, 7 flask shipments out of nearly 6,000 are likely to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the 4 Bq cm2 limit over the past three years.
  1 Radiological Consequences Resulting from Accidents and Incidents involving the Transport of Radioactive Materials in the UK–1995 Review, National Radiological Protection Board Memorandum NRPB-M662, March 1996.
  2 Radiological Consequences Resulting from Accidents and Incidents involving the Transport of Radioactive Materials in the UK–1996 Review, National Radiological Protection Board Memorandum NRPB-M862, November 1997.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many flights have taken place since 1995 in which spent nuclear fuel was carried within United Kingdom airspace; what were the places of origin and destination in each case; and what was the volume carried in each case. [45381]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]There has been only one flight of spent nuclear fuel in UK airspace since 1995. That shipment involved flying a44
  small amount of spent fuel (containing ~4.5 kg of uranium) from Tbilisi in Georgia to RAF Kinloss for onward transmission to Dounreay by road.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the incidents where(a) chemicals and (b) radioactive material have been lost overboard in (i) UK waters and (ii) elsewhere from UK-registered ships since February 1997, giving for each instance the location, the chemicals or materials involved and the amounts subsequently recovered. [45380]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]The information is not available in the form requested. However, the table gives a summary of packages containing dangerous or harmful goods found in UK waters between February and December 1997. This information has been provided by the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea (ACOPS).

  Date

  Source

  Nature of incident

  Location

  February 1997

  unknown

  Three 25 litre drums found containing hydrogen peroxide

  North West Scotland

  February 1997

  ship Leopard

  40 foot container of charged batteries lost

  North Irish Sea

  February 1997

  unknown

  6 drums of phosphoric acid and hydrogen peroxide (954 litres in total) found

  Tremadog Bay,Wales

  March 1997

  unknown

  5x5 foot container of 1,000 litres tetramethyl lead found

  Isle of Mull

  April 1997

  unknown

  10 litre package of phosphine fumigant found

  North Sea

  April 1997

  unknown

  Two 45 gallon drums found containing 205 litres of an undetermined substance

  Mallaig

  I further understand from my Department's Marine Pollution Control Unit that in February and March this year around 25 drums containing an undetermined toxic substance were washed ashore along the south coast of the UK from Dorset to East Sussex.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by local authority the yield to the Exchequer of business rates in the last year for which figures are available. [45464]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a table showing the amounts which local authorities calculated as their provisional contribution to the non-domestic rates pool for 1998–99.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans she has to abolish the Crown exemption from non-domestic rates; and if she will make a statement. [46200]
  45
  Ms Armstrong
  The Local Government and Rating Act 1997 made provision to end the Crown exemption from non-domestic rates in England, Wales and Scotland. We have decided to bring these provisions into force with effect from 1 April 2000. From that date, Crown property will be subject to non-domestic rates in the same way as property occupied by other ratepayers. We will make orders to commence the relevant parts of the 1997 Act in due course.

  It has been Government policy since the late nineteenth century that property occupied for the public service, including Government departments, should make contributions in lieu of rates on the same basis as if they were rateable. Abolishing Crown exemption will give this policy a legal foundation and bring the Crown in line with other ratepayers.

  Northern Line
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the new trains on the Northern Line to come into service. [45513]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Although this is an operational matter for London Underground, I understand that the first train came into service last Friday, 12 June; the first of what will be a rolling programme over the following months.

  Urban Green Spaces
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages of issuing(a) National Playing Fields Association and (b) Local Planning Authority Guidance on the provision of open spaces below 2 hectares in inner city areas where local residents do not have access to green spaces within 0.4 kilometres of their homes. [45633]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Government guidance to local planning authorities on the provision of open space is contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 17: Sport and Recreation, which was published in 1991. We have recently reviewed the effectiveness of this guidance, and a report will be published shortly.

  The current advice does not propose a single standard for the whole country but gives as examples the National Playing Fields Association's and the Greater London Development Plan/London Planning Advisory Committee's standards.

  The National Playing Fields Association's longstanding approach of seeking 6 acres per 1,000 population does not address the issue of accessibility. The GLDB/LPAC standards are more pertinent to large urban areas and address directly the accessibility issues.

  I would expect London Boroughs to assess open space deficiency using the standards in Table 7.1 of the Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities.

  Hedges
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 423, on
  46
  hedges, what conclusion he has reached on the need for Government intervention in relation to leylandii trees and other high boundary hedges. [45508]

  Angela Eagle
  We have not yet reached a conclusion on whether there is a need for Government intervention in relation to leylandii trees and other high boundary hedges. We are considering carefully the issues involved.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the protection available to red squirrels. [45681]

  Angela Eagle
  The red squirrel is currently subject to the fullest protection available under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There are no plans to alter this situation.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what date is specified for completion of the entire line in LCR's contract to build the CTRL. [45409]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On present plans, LCR and Railtrack expect the full link to be completed by 2007.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the contractual obligation for LCR if Railtrack does not proceed with the construction of phase two of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [45629]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  LCR will be under a full contractual obligation to build the entire railway from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provisions have been made by the Government in the event of an overrun of costs for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [45630]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the terms of the proposed deal with LCR and Railtrack, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced to the House on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, construction risk is to be borne in the private sector.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how passenger forecasts for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link have been calculated. [45623]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department's independent assessment of the various Eurostar passenger forecasts took account of a number of factors including Cross-Channel market trends, the relative competitive position of Eurostar and infrastructure changes such as the opening of the Rail Link itself.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the guarantees which exist to ensure that phase two of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is built. [45625]
  47
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  LCR will remain contractually obliged to build the entire railway from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras; Railrack will be able to realise a full rate of return only if they commit to the second phase of construction as well as the first; and the Government capital grant will be divided so that nearly two-thirds of the £1.8 billion available is held back for the second phase of construction.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Thameslink 2000 proposals for St. Pancras Station will go ahead. [45626]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Construction of the Thameslink 2000 station at St. Pancras is included in the second construction phase of the CTRL project which LCR expect to start in 2001.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to which phase of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link the Government subsidy of £140 million refers. [45628]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The figure relates to the entire link.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a statement on the future development of the Kings Cross railway lands. [45353]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The King's Cross Railway Lands remain linked to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, a deal that secures the future of the new railway from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras. London and Continental Railways continue to develop plans for the regeneration of the King's Cross Railway Lands in consultation with the London boroughs of Camden and Islington and other key parties.

  Local Government Reorganisation (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Essex County Council to meet the redundancy costs of local government re-organisation in Essex. [45470]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Resources in the form of supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) are made available to reorganising authorities under the Local Government Reorganisation Costs Scheme. Under the scheme Essex County Council have received allocations of maximum amounts totalling £5.483 million (£2.8 million for 1997–98 and £2.683 million for 1998–99) which may be used for any costs eligible under the scheme, including redundancy costs.

  Ministerial Interview
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a transcript of the interview given by the Minister for the Environment on BBC's On the Record on 7 June. [45449]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today placed a transcript of the interview in the Library.

  Air Quality (Lullington Heath)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the occasions since 1 January 1997 when the National Air Quality Standard for ozone was exceeded at Lullington Heath, giving the maximum hourly means reached for each such occasion. [46076]

  Angela Eagle
  There have been 719 exceedences of the National Air Quality Standard for ozone on 81 days (listed below) at Lullington Heath since January 1997.

  Day

  Maximum 8-hour running mean (ppb)

  Maximum hour (ppb)

  Number of exceedences on that day

  11 March 1997

  60

  65

  8

  1 April 1997

  59

  64

  8

  2 April 1997

  65

  79

  8

  6 April 1997

  50

  53

  1

  9 April 1997

  59

  69

  9

  10 April 1997

  68

  74

  22

  11 April 1997

  53

  71

  1

  13 April 1997

  51

  55

  5

  21 April 1997

  54

  57

  8

  24 April 1997

  56

  59

  8

  25 April 1997

  51

  58

  2

  1 May 1997

  57

  62

  8

  2 May 1997

  73

  77

  13

  3 May 1997

  65

  68

  14

  12 May 1997

  51

  54

  3

  16 May 1997

  55

  65

  6

  17 May 1997

  60

  65

  9

  24 May 1997

  50

  53

  4

  25 May 1997

  57

  59

  10

  26 May 1997

  58

  61

  10

  27 May 1997

  55

  61

  3

  29 May 1997

  59

  66

  9

  30 May 1997

  52

  58

  3

  31 May 1997

  58

  61

  10

  1 June 1997

  55

  57

  10

  2 June 1997

  56

  61

  7

  3 June 1997

  58

  63

  10

  4 June 1997

  54

  58

  9

  5 June 1997

  64

  70

  13

  6 June 1997

  50

  59

  4

  10 June 1997

  73

  78

  10

  11 June 1997

  65

  52

  6

  16 June 1997

  50

  57

  2

  18 June 1997

  55

  58

  9

  19 June 1997

  50

  57

  1

  5 July 1997

  50

  57

  2

  7 July 1997

  54

  59

  8

  8 July 1997

  56

  66

  5

  11 July 1997

  57

  61

  8

  12 July 1997

  56

  58

  11

  19 July 1997

  54

  63

  7

  20 July 1997

  51

  54

  4

  22 July 1997

  54

  68

  3

  23 July 1997

  67

  81

  24

  24 July 1997

  51

  56

  4

  7 August 1997

  53

  57

  5

  8 August 1997

  63

  69

  11

  9 August 1997

  61

  77

  8

  10 August 1997

  95

  110

  24

  11 August 1997

  79

  73

  12

  12 August 1997

  50

  60

  3

  16 August 1997

  67

  74

  9

  17 August 1997

  72

  75

  15

  18 August 1997

  81

  99

  20

  19 August 1997

  85

  94

  24

  49

  Day

  Maximum 8-hour running mean (ppb)

  Maximum hour (ppb)

  Number of exceedences on that day

  20 August 1997

  77

  84

  24

  21 August 1997

  65

  77

  15

  11 September 1997

  53

  59

  6

  16 September 1997

  56

  59

  10

  17 September 1997

  54

  58

  6

  18 September 1997

  53

  64

  4

  6 April 1998

  51

  53

  6

  22 April 1998

  56

  63

  7

  23 April 1998

  51

  63

  1

  4 May 1998

  51

  54

  2

  8 May 1998

  64

  69

  11

  9 May 1998

  57

  58

  9

  10 May 1998

  55

  63

  8

  11 May 1998

  62

  65

  6

  12 May 1998

  59

  64

  7

  13 May 1998

  84

  98

  15

  14 May 1998

  81

  76

  18

  15 May 1998

  79

  86

  11

  16 May 1998

  62

  66

  14

  17 May 1998

  56

  61

  13

  18 May 1998

  54

  57

  9

  19 May 1998

  56

  59

  22

  20 May 1998

  58

  63

  9

  29 May 1998

  51

  55

  4

  30 May 1998

  72

  77

  11

  31 May 1998

  52

  68

  1

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the annual cost to public funds of dealing with stray dogs. [45820]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 9 June 1998,Official Report, columns 516–17.

  Water and Fire Services (Co-operation)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the National Liaison Group established to prepare a code of conduct facilitating better co-operation between the water industry and fire services will complete its study; and if he will make a statement; [45729]

  (2) if he will list the membership of the National Liaison Group established to prepare a code of conduct facilitating better co-operation between the water industry and fire services, indicating which of the members represent the fire services; [45730]

  (3) if the National Liaison Group established to prepare a code of conduct facilitating better co-operation between the water industry and fire services, is consulting (a) insurance organisations and (b) the fire protection industry in its study. [45731]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Liaison Group, which is chaired by my Department, does not have appointed members. It is made up of representatives from the water 50
  industry nominated by Water UK, from the fire services nominated by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association (CACFOA), from the Local Government Association and from the Home Office. The main aims of the Group, which have been agreed by the members, are further to improve communication between the water industry and the fire services at national and local levels. The proposed Code of Practice is seen as one way of achieving this aim and should be in place by the end of the year. There are no proposals at present to consult with insurance representatives or any other bodies that may have an interest, but I will ensure that my officials raise the question of consultation at the next meeting of the Group.

  Water Pricing
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish his third review of water company pricing; and if he will make a statement on the principles on which he will issue guidance to Ofwat on achieving sustainability in water management. [45783]

  Angela Eagle
  The Periodic Review of water company prices is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. He has stated that he will issue his draft determinations of price limits in July 1999 and, following representations on these from companies, issue his final determinations in November 1999.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stated at the Water Summit in May 1997 that he expected the water industry to be world class, water-efficient and environmentally sustainable. Those principles will be embodied in guidance which he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will give to the Director General.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data his Department has collated on housing spending for each London borough for 1997–98 and for the current year on(a) capital repairs and (b) new constructions and on the proportion of this which comes from (i) capital receipts and (ii) Government sources. [45344]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information on housing capital expenditure in 1997–98 as reported by London boroughs is set out in the following table. Estimates of overall capital expenditure in 1998–99 will be reported by local authorities as part of their Housing Investment Programme (Annual Plan) submissions in September.

  Authorities' housing capital programmes in both years will be financed in part by the Capital Receipts Initiative, in addition to HIP allocations, Supplementary Credit Approvals and Single Regeneration Budget/Estate Action resources. Information on HIP and CRI allocations is given in the table; final information on the financing of the 1997–98 capital programme will be available later in the year.
  51

  Housing capital expenditure by London boroughs in 1997–98

  £000

  capital repairs

  New construction and acquisitions

  London boroughs

  LA stock

  Non LA stock

  LA stock

  Non LA stock

  Other spend All stock

  Total reported spend

  Barking and Dagenham

  12,582

  1,380

  322

  11,428

  0

  25,712

  Barnet

  2,741

  2,136

  1,251

  1,179

  855

  8,162

  Bexley

  5,405

  1,887

  0

  891

  284

  8,467

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley1

  2

  1,956

  3

  1,807

  859

  4,629

  Camden

  24,823

  786

  0

  444

  538

  26,591

  City of London

  3,981

  22

  58

  3,322

  123

  7,506

  Croydon

  6,286

  2,080

  17

  3,801

  1,795

  13,979

  Ealing1

  2,013

  2,595

  0

  0

  528

  5,136

  Enfield

  5,699

  4,046

  194

  1,338

  1,591

  12,868

  Greenwich

  17,558

  2,373

  0

  0

  802

  20,733

  Hackney

  28,627

  3,978

  13

  0

  4,509

  37,127

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  13,612

  2,914

  326

  1,947

  820

  19,619

  Haringey

  13,344

  1,947

  0

  521

  1,434

  17,246

  Harrow

  2,126

  1,558

  216

  0

  847

  4,747

  Havering1

  3,993

  349

  1

  0

  285

  4,628

  Hillingdon1

  5,697

  1,487

  2,359

  0

  584

  10,127

  Hounslow

  15,060

  1,159

  0

  398

  1,505

  18,122

  Islington

  10,316

  1,090

  0

  0

  2,368

  13,774

  Kensington and Chelsea1

  4,397

  2,189

  0

  0

  302

  6,888

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  1,781

  1,568

  0

  938

  3,000

  7,287

  Newham1

  5,486

  4,054

  0

  0

  1,234

  10,774

  Redbridge

  5,567

  4,354

  0

  0

  172

  10,093

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,698

  522

  0

  481

  931

  3,632

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  4,547

  1,544

  0

  0

  728

  6,819

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  14,588

  1,728

  0

  1,075

  1,107

  18,498

  Wandsworth1

  15,387

  2,792

  98

  0

  1,000

  19,277

  Westminster1

  18,349

  928

  166

  0

  4,564

  24,007

  1 Figures for April-December 1997

  £000

  Total initial HIP allocations

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  London boroughs

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Barking and Dagenham

  4,974

  5,028

  1,320

  4,713

  Barnet

  4,790

  3,626

  1,147

  3,362

  Bexley

  2,639

  2,458

  602

  1,998

  Brent

  10,932

  8,045

  1,827

  5,577

  Bromley

  2,614

  1,659

  523

  1,272

  Camden

  10,270

  9,271

  2,658

  8,612

  City of London

  343

  276

  80

  263

  Croydon

  8,477

  4,401

  1,385

  3,726

  Ealing

  7,799

  6,475

  1,757

  5,410

  Enfield

  5,895

  4,437

  1,114

  3,145

  Greenwich

  10,491

  7,791

  2,137

  6,555

  Hackney

  13,884

  11,172

  3,282

  9,298

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9,376

  8,022

  1,718

  5,428

  Haringey

  10,405

  8,249

  2,273

  6,754

  Harrow

  2,598

  1,862

  633

  1,789

  Havering

  2,384

  1,872

  787

  2,421

  Hillingdon

  5,999

  3,597

  1,255

  3,508

  Hounslow

  5,134

  3,829

  1,351

  3,871

  Islington

  9,996

  8,170

  2,848

  9,168

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,358

  5,723

  1,095

  3,959

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,396

  1,803

  470

  1,275

  Lambeth

  13,648

  12,653

  3,317

  11,075

  Lewisham

  11,327

  10,780

  2,542

  8,610

  Merton

  3,310

  2,579

  729

  2,244

  Newham

  16,394

  14,824

  2,282

  7,164

  Redbridge

  4,258

  3,442

  888

  2,275

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,911

  2,212

  646

  1,854

  Southwark

  13,661

  14,337

  3,215

  11,386

  Sutton

  2,944

  2,804

  580

  1,758

  Tower Hamlets

  9,777

  11,383

  2,576

  8,973

  52

  £000

  Total initial HIP allocations

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  London boroughs

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Waltham Forest

  6,432

  6,605

  1,289

  4,221

  Wandsworth

  10,147

  8,249

  2,727

  8,722

  Westminster

  10,274

  7,554

  2,039

  6,618

  London

  242,837

  205,188

  53,092

  167,004

  Notes:

  1. Total HIP allocations represent Housing Annual Capital Guideline allocations plus initial allocations for Private Sector Renewal and Disabled Facilities Grant resources

  2. Capital Receipts Initiative figures represent guideline allocations

  Homelessness (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's current estimate, for each London borough, of the number of(a) homeless people in temporary accommodation, (b) rough sleepers and (c) people on the waiting list for local authority accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [45388]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table provides the available data on the numbers of homeless households in temporary accommodation at 31 December 1997 together with the numbers of households on the housing register and local authorities' broad assessments of people sleeping rough at 1 April 1997.
  53

  Households in temporary accommodation1

  Households on the housing register2

  People sleeping rough2

  Barking and Dagenham

  272

  1,422

  No estimate

  Barnet

  623

  2,975

  21–30

  Bexley

  171

  3,175

  0–10

  Brent

  3,079

  12,974

  31–40

  Bromley

  164

  2,380

  0–10

  Camden

  1,574

  7,456

  41–50

  City of London

  38

  724

  31–40

  Croydon

  1,154

  5,038

  31–40

  Ealing

  801

  10,705

  41–50

  Enfield

  1,345

  3,029

  No estimate

  Greenwich

  245

  7,693

  0–10

  Hackney

  895

  10,941

  11–20

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  n/a

  5,912

  21–30

  Haringey

  n/a

  5,301

  0–10

  Harrow

  789

  1,926

  0–10

  Havering

  47

  2,242

  No estimate

  Hillingdon

  1,224

  3,395

  21–30

  Hounslow

  325

  6,564

  21–30

  Islington

  633

  10,950

  11–20

  Kensington and Chelsea

  517

  5,554

  21–30

  Kingston upon Thames

  n/a

  2,161

  11–20

  Lambeth

  1,036

  10,263

  31–40

  Lewisham

  n/a

  12,337

  No estimate

  Merton

  43

  2,521

  No estimate

  Newham

  n/a

  10,281

  No estimate

  Redbridge

  504

  2,107

  No estimate

  Richmond upon Thames

  266

  2,684

  31–40

  Southwark

  n/a

  3,749

  0–10

  Sutton

  n/a

  2,346

  0–10

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  7,955

  51+

  Waltham Forest

  748

  8,000

  0–10

  Wandsworth

  426

  2,662

  No estimate

  Westminster

  n/a

  3,658

  51+

  1 Source: PIE returns

  2 Source: HIP1 returns

  n/a = not available

  The numbers in temporary accommodation reflect households with immediate housing needs while those on the register cover them and households with a more general need.

  Train Companies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the proportion of Railtrack income from train operating companies which comes from public subsidies to maintain services; and if he will make a statement. [45347]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Train operating companies (TOCs) receive Support for Passenger Rail Services (SPRS) from the Franchising Director and grants from Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs). Those subsidies are not hypothecated to cover particular types of expenditure, so they cannot be directly identified as the source of payments made by TOCs to Railtrack. In 1997/98, Railtrack received some £2.1 billion—over 85 per cent. of its total income—from access charges from TOCs. Total public subsidies to TOCs in 1997/98 amounted to some £1.8 billion.

  Bletchley-Bicester Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans have been put to his Department for the re-opening of the Bletchley to Bicester railway line to passenger traffic; and if he will make a statement; [45351]

  (2) what reports he has received from Railtrack concerning the condition of the Bletchley to Bicester railway line; and what assessment he has made of whether it is in a useable condition. [45352]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Re-opening of this section of railway line to passenger services forms part of a proposal recently put to me by the East West Rail Consortium for a rail link from Ipswich/Norwich to Swindon. Railtrack is a member of this consortium. My officials, and those from the Franchising Director's office, are considering the detailed business case put forward by the consortium against OPRAF's interim Planning Criteria approved by ministers and published last November. I am awaiting the outcome of these deliberations.

  Honeybourne-Cheltenham Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans have been put to his Department for the re-opening of the railway line from Honeybourne to Cheltenham; and if he will make a statement. [45350]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Part of this route is now owned and operated by the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway PLC as a leisure railway.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) local authority, (b) housing association and (c) co-operative houses were started in 1997–98; and how many he expects to be started in the current year. [45383]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is estimated that 165 new local authority dwellings and 19,100 new housing association (now Registered Social Landlords) dwellings were started in England during the financial year 1997–98. No information is collected centrally about new houses started by co-operative housing groups.

  The Department does not forecast starts. However the Housing Corporation estimates that in 1998–99 it will grant approvals for around 31,000 new housing association homes to be built or acquired by the private sector, with rehabilitation or renovation carried out where necessary, using Approved Development Programme and local authority funding.

  Local Agenda 21
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was his Department's expenditure on Local Agenda 21 projects for each year since 1992; what plans he has for expenditure in the current year; and what monitoring his Department undertakes of Local Agenda 21 initiatives. [45385]
  55
  Angela Eagle
  The Government's main role in the Local Agenda 21 process is to provide advice and encouragement to local authorities. In this capacity, DETR is a member of the Local Agenda 21 Steering Group that manages the project. The Department also co-funds the'Local Agenda 21 Case Study Projects' in partnership with the Local Government Management Board (LGMB). The Case Studies aim to identify and disseminate examples of best practice by Local Agenda 21 Groups.

  Regionally, DETR has supported a range of projects, events and seminars to promote Local Agenda 21, through Government Offices. The approximate expenditure from 1995 to the present is as follows:

  1995–96: £3,429

  1996–97: £14,178

  1997–98: £56,371

  This year's events have been arranged in partnership with the Local Government Association (LGA) and the LGMB. The projected expenditure for 1998–99 is estimated to be £55,000.

  Since 1991 the Environment Action fund has supported a range of local environmental projects. It is not possible to identify specific sums within that amount which have been devoted to Local Agenda 21, as opposed to wider Agenda 21 work. I am sending my hon. Friend a list of projects supported in 1997–98 which had a clear Local Agenda 21 focus.

  We have been working closely with the LGA and LGMB to encourage all local authorities in England to produce and review their Local Agenda 21 strategies by 2000 to meet the Prime Minister's target. In July this year the LGMB will be publishing the results of the new survey of local authorities which will indicate how many have now published Local Agenda 21 strategies. We believe it is right for local Government rather than central Government to take the lead in monitoring the production of such strategies and encouraging the sharing of good practice.

  London Buses
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to enable London Buses to become a bus operator; and if he will make a statement. [45346]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport has powers under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to operate bus services. Their current practice is to put all services out to competitive tender on grounds of value for money.

  Planning (Riddlesdon)
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency to delay the hearing into the appeal by Taywood Homes against Bradford metropolitan district council's decision to refuse permission for a development at Swine lane, Riddlesdon, until all parties are able to be present. [45810]
  56
  Mr. Raynsford
  The administration of planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency and I do not propose to intervene in this matter. I have asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Mrs. Ann Cryer, dated 15 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking whether he would instruct the Planning Inspectorate to delay the public local inquiry which is due to open on 11 August into the appeal by Taywood Homes for residential development at Swine Lane, Riddlesden. I have also been passed your letter of 20 May to Nick Raynsford, enclosing this correspondence from your constituents, Ms Christine Brown, Mr. E. A. Denton and the Aire Valley Conservation Society.
  The Government is committed to ensuring that appeals are decided with the maximum practicable speed and efficiency. It is for this reason that on 24 March the Inspectorate, after receiving the written agreement of the local planning authority, confirmed arrangements for the earliest possible inquiry date, ie 11 August.
  We are not inflexible in these matters and are always willing to rearrange a local inquiry when it can be shown that there would otherwise be a breach of the requirements of natural justice. I have to say, however, that the fact that some of your constituents may be unable to attend on a particular date does not, by itself, amount to such a breach. It is an argument that could frequently be advanced and, if accepted, would lead to substantial delays in the planning system.
  I have considered most carefully your request for a postponement of the inquiry, but regret to say that I am not satisfied that it is justified in all the circumstances. For anyone unable to attend the inquiry the Inspector will be able to take account of any written representations received before the inquiry. The Inspector will also be able to allow representatives to appear at the inquiry on behalf of a particular group (or groups) of interested persons.
  In view of your interest, I will see that you are notified of the outcome of the appeal.

  Town Centres
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to protect town centre shopping facilities; [45287]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards town centres. [45289]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In our response to the House of Commons Environment Committee report on shopping centres (July 1997 Cmnd 3729), we reaffirmed our commitment to the policy in PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Developments. This guidance aims to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres by focusing new retail and leisure development within town centres. We have since clarified that this guidance applies equally to extensions to such development. Our priority is to ensure that the policy in PPG6 is consistently and rigorously implemented.

  We fund the development and promotion of town centre management and the dissemination of good practice through grant aid to the Association of Town Centre Management and the Civic Trust, and research on town centre partnerships. We put forward town centre management as a UK good practice example for the Presidency Meeting in Glasgow.
  57
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to commission research into the impact of out-of-town shopping developments on town centres. [45286]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no current plans to commission further research.

  The Department commissioned a number of research reports which informed the development of the policy in PPG6, including "Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge", published in 1994, "The Effects of Major Out of Town Retail Development" published in 1992 and more recently research on the impact of out-of-town superstores on market towns, the report of which we will be publishing shortly.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the proportion of retail turnover which takes place outside town centres. [45288]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department is funding a research study to enable identification of town centre boundaries and to generate basic statistics such as employment, retail turnover and floorspace for these areas. The research study is currently at the pilot stage. This work will enable the Department in time to gather and assess information on retail trends such as the proportion of retail turnover which takes place outside town centres.

  Local Authorities (Public Transport)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to remove the restrictions on local authorities providing their own public transport services. [46043]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced on 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 637–38, more flexible borrowing arrangements for investment in local authority airports. Otherwise, there are no plans to change the present arrangements; but the Government is keen that local authorities should be able to promote public transport as part of an integrated transport policy. Our proposals for this will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper.

  Road Traffic Reduction
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to assess the success of local authorities in complying with the requirements of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997; if he will publish the results of his Department's findings; what action he intends to take against those authorities that are failing to meet the terms of the Act; and if he will make a statement. [46045]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Guidance to local authorities on implementing the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 was issued in draft earlier this year for consultation. This made clear that each local authority would be expected to produce a report containing an assessment of levels of local road traffic in their area and forecast growth in those levels, together with targets for reducing those levels or their rate of growth, as required by the Act, by 31 July 1999. We will want to satisfy ourselves that authorities 58
  are taking their obligations under the Act seriously, and their performance will be a consideration in the founding they receive for transport capital expenditure.

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he plans to take to encourage technical improvements to ease the difficulties faced by disabled drivers. [46089]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, through its Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service (MAVIS), works closely with vehicle manufacturers and adaptation specialists to promote improvements both in vehicle design and in the range and quality of adaptations available to enable disabled drivers to get in and out of vehicles and to control them safely.

  North Circular Road, London
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the final cost or expected final cost for each of the contracts to extend the North Circular Road (A406) at Fore Street N18 extending east to the Waltham Forest boundary, and in each case what was the increase and the percentage charge over the original budgeted cost; and what is the date or expected date of completion of each contract. [45339]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 15 June 1998:
  The Minister for Transport in London, Glenda Jackson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the improvements to the A406 between Fore Street and Hall Lane.
  The information asked for is on the attached table with one exception.
  I am afraid that for commercial reasons I cannot let you have an estimate of the final outturn costs. To do so would weaken our bargaining position with the contractor in the event of disputes over the final account or the settlement of claims. I have therefore given figures showing the spend so far.
  The contracts were let under the Institution of Civil Engineers standard form of contract, which has been used for many years throughout the construction industry for major civil engineering works, and in which the contractor is paid for the actual, rather than estimated, work done. With road schemes it is not possible to identify all of the necessary work in advance of construction and this was true in this case which is a complex project in an urban environment.
  The disadvantage of using this form of contract is the uncertainty of costs and time but the Highways Agency addressed these concerns in a review of its procurement strategy, which led to an announcement in June 1997 of new procurement initiatives. As a result we are beginning to use other forms of contract, which share risk more equitably. Partnering is being encouraged to get away from the adversarial way in which some of our contracts have been conducted in the past.
  59

  Highway scheme

  Completion date

  Original works budget1 £ million–1992

  Spend to date1 £ million

  Percentage increase

  Estimated late summer/early autumn

  Contract A: Fore Street Underpass

  (Tunnel-July)

  56.6

  56.5

  —

  Contract B: Angel Road Viaduct

  28 November 1996

  31.4

  37.7

  18

  Contract C: Lea Valley Viaduct

  22 August 1996

  32.7

  39.3

  20.2

  Total

  120.7

  133.5

  10.5

  1 Figures include the cost of works, statutory undertakers, variations of price and contingencies. They exclude Traffic Control Systems Unit (TCSU), Preparation and Supervision (P&S) and Land costs

  Note:

  All figures are exclusive of VAT

  Housing (Sewerage Services)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of which projects the Environment Agency has opposed new housing plans because the proposed dwellings were not connected to a public sewer. [45838]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not collected centrally.

  London Regional Transport
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to advertise the post of chairman of London Regional Transport. [45813]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are considering with our advisers how best to manage the recruitment for this important post.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what directions and advice he proposes to give London Regional Transport in preparation for the establishment of a London Assembly. [45814]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport is one of a number of bodies whose responsibilities will be taken over by the Greater London Authority subject to the necessary legislation being approved by Parliament. Discussions are already under way between the Government Office for London and London Transport, and the other bodies involved, with a view to effecting a smooth transition.

  Bus Companies (Customer Service)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve bus companies' customer service standards(a) in London and (b) elsewhere. [45815]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In London such matters are for London Transport, in the letting and monitoring of contracts for bus services. Elsewhere they are chiefly for bus operators, and for local authorities where service subsidy contracts are concerned. I am glad that, in addition, a number of local authorities are entering into quality partnerships with bus operators, to make bus services more attractive to present and potential passengers.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 June 1998,Official Report, column 856, relating to the annual rental of the Environment Agency's new headquarters, if she will publish the name of the landlord of the premises. [45826]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency's new area office in Cumbria is leased from Allen Commercial Developments Ltd.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment.Transport and the Regions when the Government will announce the submission of further areas to the European Commission as candidate special areas of conservation. [46078]

  Mr. Meacher
  A further list of UK proposals was sent to the European Commission on 12 June. This consists of 14 new candidate Special Areas of Conservation, boundary extensions to 8 existing sites already submitted to the Commission as candidate SACs and the addition of further qualifying interests on one candidate SAC. I am pleased to be able to reaffirm the UK's commitment to the Natura 2000 process by announcing the submission of this further list of sites during the UK Presidency.

  Proposals list sent to the Commission

  Sites

  New sites

  Clints Quarry

  England

  River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake

  England

  Mottey Meadows

  England

  Portholme

  England

  Burnham Beeches

  England

  Denby Grange Colliery Ponds

  England

  Craven Limestone Complex

  England

  Ingleborough Complex

  England

  Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs

  England

  Peak District Dales Woodlands

  England

  East Devon Pebblebed Heaths

  England

  River Wye/Afon Gwy

  England/Wales

  River Teifi/Afon Teifi

  Wales

  Ballochbuie

  Scotland

  Boundary changes to existing sites

  Peak District Dales

  England

  The Broads

  England

  The New Forest

  England

  Essex Estuaries

  England

  Fal and Helford

  England

  Plymouth Sound and Estuaries

  England

  Morecambe Bay

  England

  Solway Mosses

  England

  61

  Proposals list sent to the Commission

  Sites

  Changes to the interest of existing site within existing boundaries

  Tulach Hill and Glen Fender Meadows

  Scotland

  Barking-Gospel Oak Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with Railtrack and train-operating companies concerning the electrification, upgrading and extension of services on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; and if he will make a statement. [45348]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that Railtrack are currently assessing the options for upgrading the Gospel Oak-Barking line. The final decision will ultimately be a commercial one for Railtrack.

  Rocket Launch Site, Anguilla
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria to be used by the Environment Agency in deciding whether to approve a request to build a rocket launch-pad on Sombrero Island, Anguilla. [44649]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Beal Aerospace, a US firm, has approached the Government of Anguilla with a proposal to develop a satellite launch site on Sombrero Island. A US environmental consultancy firm is currently conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposal. This EIA will form part of Beal Aerospace's planning application.

  This will be the first application the UK has received for a commercial launch site and so it is not possible, at this early stage in the process, to list the criteria to be used in evaluating the application. Officials in the British National Space Centre (BNSC) will consult the US authorities who have relevant experience and, in conjunction with the Environment Agency (EA) and other relevant governmental organisations, they will provide advice to Ministers on suitable evaluation criteria.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Violence
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the trend in the reported incidence of racial violence over the past five years. [44262]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of racial incidents reported to the police has risen in recent years.

  Between 1992 and 1997 the number of incidents reported rose, from 7,734 in 1992 to 11,878 in 1994–95 and to 13,151 in 1996–97. That is why we are taking steps to tackle it.

  Reoffending
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made 62
  of the contribution which family responsibilities make to reducing reoffending; and if he will give priority to placing prisoners within easy reach of their families. [44263]

  Ms Quin
  Home Office research suggests that family responsibilities and the formation of a stable relationship are a factor in young women aged 14 to 25 desisting from offending. Young men may be similarly influenced, but at a later age. Further research is being undertaken.

  The Government's view is that it is certainly desirable to keep prisoners closely in touch with their families and for them to be located close to their homes and families wherever possible.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that there is early intervention with young offenders to prevent reoffending. [44268]

  Mr. Straw
  My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of early intervention with young offenders to prevent reoffending. The child safety order and local child curfews, both for under 10s, and the Final Warning Scheme, for those aged 10 and over, will help to nip offending in the bud. New local crime reduction strategies and the new youth offending teams will help local action to reduce youth crime. We are also providing new powers to enable the police to deal with truants in partnership with the education authorities.

  Asylum Procedures
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of his review of asylum procedures. [44264]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We hope to make an announcement before the recess.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance he offers to private businesses to install closed circuit television; and if he will make a statement. [44265]

  Mr. Michael
  No direct assistance is offered to private businesses to install closed circuit television on their premises but businesses gain enormously from CCTV coverage of public areas in town and city centres.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority will be given to spending on closed circuit television beyond 1998 in the Government's spending review. [44277]

  Mr. Michael
  The expenditure plans we inherited from the previous administration made no provision whatsoever to support closed circuit television (CCTV) after 1998–99. Decisions on expenditure for 1999–2000 and beyond will be announced in a White Paper, to be published in July.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on security of contracting out the Metropolitan police information technology systems. [44266]
  63
  Mr. Michael
  The Metropolitan Police Service is carrying out a thorough assessment of the security implications associated with all its Information Technology systems. It will not contract work out unless it is satisfied that all security needs will be met.

  Prisons (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on ministerial visits to prisons. [44269]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers visit prisons to see for themselves what is happening at individual establishments, to talk to staff and their union representatives, to prisoners and to members of Boards of Visitors about matters of concern to them. While most visits are notified in advance I have made it clear that I intend to make some unannounced visits. I also have sought to vary visits by arranging to `shadow' governors and prison officers to accompany Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons as one of his inspectors.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances when the Civil Service Appeals Board has recommended reinstatement of a prison officer, that officer has been reinstated in the last five years. [44270]

  Ms Quin
  In the last five years the Civil Service Appeals Board has recommended the reinstatement of four prison officers. This recommendation was accepted in two cases.

  Parc Prison
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take in respect of Parc prison, Bridgend. [44271]

  Ms Quin
  The performance of the contractor, Bridgend Custodial Services, is being monitored regularly by senior Prison Service officials and reports on progress conveyed to me. An action plan has been agreed to address areas of concern; and an experienced Governor has been seconded to Parc to support the recently appointed Director. Both the Director General and I have visited Parc on separate occasions. Deductions in respect of failures to meet performance measures are made from the invoices due to Bridgend Custodial Services in accordance with the contract.

  Crime and Disorder Bill
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to pilot measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords]. [44272]

  Mr. Michael
  We plan to pilot a number of initiatives to tackle youth offending; measures to tackle delay in the youth justice system; the drug treatment and testing order; and use of live TV links between prison and court. Provided the Bill receives Royal Assent before the summer, we plan to commence these pilots in the autumn.

  Voting Commission
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Independent Commission on the Voting System to report. [44273]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Independent Commission on the Voting System began its work in January and was asked to report within twelve months. However, I understand that the Commission hopes to be able to complete its work ahead of schedule and report by October.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Independent Commission on the Voting System to report. [44259]

  Mr. Straw
  The Independent Commission on the Voting System began its work in January and was asked to report within twelve months. However, I understand that the Commission hopes to be able to complete its work ahead of schedule and report by October.

  Rape Victims
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to increase the protection provided to victims of rape. [44274]

  Mr. Michael
  Last week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published the report of the interdepartmental Working Group on Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses which we set up to help deliver our manifesto commitment to provide greater protection for victims, especially in rape trials. The report recommends a wide range of measures designed to provide greater protection to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses from the investigation stage through to the trial. The proposals include the use of screens, live television links, changes in the law to set out more clearly the limited circumstances in which evidence on previous sexual history may be admitted in evidence, and a ban on unrepresented defendants personally conducting cross-examination and power for the judge to clear the public gallery when the witness is giving evidence.

  Crime Rates
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the link between crime rates and the numbers of convicted offenders detained in prison. [44275]

  Mr. Michael
  Research published by the Home Office in 1993 suggested that a 25 per cent. increase in the prison population is required to obtain a one per cent. drop in recorded crime in England and Wales. The Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate continually monitor and analyse information on crime rates and prison populations in different jurisdictions. They are currently examining the relationships between these in a range of countries and the results of this work will be sent to the Home Affairs Committee shortly to assist their inquiry into Alternatives to Custody.

  Supermarket Polling Stations
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation he has made of the use of supermarkets as polling stations. [44276]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures which I chair will, in the course of its work, review recent experience in Dudley, the London Borough of Croydon and Rye, where polling stations have recently been set up in supermarkets.

  Probation Service
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the work of the Probation Service. [44278]

  Ms Quin
  We have received a wide range of representations making a variety of points.

  Speed Cameras
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the effect of speed cameras in reducing driving offences. [44280]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office "Cost Benefit Analysis of Traffic Light and Speed Cameras" has shown that the deployment of cameras has proven to be very effective in detecting offences, modifying the behaviour of drivers and reducing road casualties. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  The Government are committed to improving road safety and strongly support the police service in their use of enforcement technology. We are reviewing the current funding arrangements for these cameras to see what more might be done.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in the prison population in the United Kingdom since 1996. [44257]

  Ms Quin
  The prison population in England and Wales rose by 11 per cent. over the 12 months to 6 June 1997, when it stood at 60,850, and 8 per cent. over the last 12 months to 5 June 1998, when it stood at 65,434.

  Trends in the prison populations for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Civil Liberties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in respect of provisions relating to civil liberties. [44258]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Clause 35 of the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords] amends section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We are also considering the importance of the Murray judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which has implications for the 1994 Act.

  Suicides
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidance to police forces and coroners in respect of investigation into apparent suicides. [45130]

  Mr. Michael
  We have no plans to issue any guidance to the police or coroners on the conduct of their inquiries into deaths by apparent suicide. All such deaths are already subject to thorough investigation and reported to the coroner. The police will conduct initial inquiries into any death in suspicious circumstances. If the police are satisfied that no offence has been committed, it is for the coroner to decide what inquiries (beyond, for example, witness statements taken by the police) may be needed. This may include further information about the cause of death or the circumstances in which the death occurred.

  The conduct of the coroner's inquiries is a matter for the coroner. The courts have held, though, that, to bring a verdict of suicide, the coroner or his jury needs to be satisfied in accordance with the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt), rather than the normal civil standard. This is likely to require some indication that the deceased intended to take his or her own life.

  While it is not for the coroner to establish the particular reason why the deceased may have killed him or herself, it may be necessary to seek to establish that there was some motivation for the suicide. Where there is documentary evidence in connection with this issue (ie notes or letters left by the deceased), the Coroners Rules provide for documentary evidence made by a deceased person to be admitted in evidence, but such documentary evidence need not be read aloud if the coroner so directs. Most coroners will publicly disclose only as much as may be necessary from such "suicide notes" for the purpose of the inquest.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time taken for scientific analysis to be carried out by the Forensic Science Service at the request of the police in respect of material submitted for DNA testing; [44165]

  (2) what is the average time taken for analysis of blood to be carried out by the Forensic Science Service at the request of the police; [44163]

  (3) what is the average time taken for scientific analysis to be carried out by the Forensic Science Service at the request of the police in respect of samples believed to be (a) heroin, (b) ecstasy, (c) LSD, (d) amphetamines, (e) cocaine and (f) cannabis. [44164]

  Mr. Michael
  The plans for the Forensic Science Service for the next two years include a focus on delivering improvements in turn-around times to meet all police requirements. This will mean an expansion in output of over 30 per cent. which will be achieved by the substantial recruitment and training of new staff and the development of existing staff.

  Where police forces have requested analysis of material by techniques other than DNA (conventional blood grouping techniques), the average turn-around time (taken

  67
  over the year 1997/98) is 66 days. This is compared with 65 days in 1996/97. The year 1997/98 has seen a 112 per cent. increase in submissions.

  In cases involving cannabis identification, the average turn-around time (taken over the year 1997/98) is 24 days, compared with 19 days in 1996/97. For non-cannabis drugs, the average time taken is 22 days, compared with 17 days in 1996/97. Figures are not kept separately for each individual non-cannabis drug.

  Where police forces have requested DNA analysis of material from crime scenes, or for intelligence or casework purposes, the average turn-around time (taken over the year 1997/98) is 44 days, compared with 71 days in 1996/97.

  The times are measured from submission of the material to the Forensic Science Service to the delivery of a written statement. The average figures include urgent cases where a rapid response is needed and an improvement in turn-around times in all these cases over the year.

  Prisoners (Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) on 1 June 1998,Official Report, columns 50–51, what estimate he has made of the aggregate licence fees which would be paid in respect of in-cell television when it is fully available in the event of the ending of Crown exemption. [44609]

  Ms Quin
  None, as yet. The Government propose to consider the practicability of a licensing regime later on in the context of licensing arrangements more generally. Meanwhile, prisoners with this earned privilege will pay a weekly charge of about £1, against average weekly earnings of £7.50, which will fully cover the costs of sets, their replacement and wall brackets.

  Incapacitant Sprays
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of allegations that police officers in Cumbria have used oleoresin capsicum in an inappropriate way; and if he will make a statement; [44848]

  (2) what reports he has received from the police service on the use of oleoresin capsicum to (a) make arrests that they would not otherwise have been able to make, (b) resolve peacefully potentially violent incidents and (c) enhance the effectiveness of women officers in dealing with incidents; [44847]

  (3) what evidence he has collated on police officer injury rates following the introduction of incapacitating sprays; and if he will give such figures as are available on a police force basis. [44849]

  Mr. Michael
  CS sprays were first carried by police officers during operational trials in 16 forces between 1 March and 31 August 1996. Since then, an increasing number of forces have adopted the spray, and it is currently carried by officers in 40 forces in England and Wales. No force has introduced incapacitant sprays containing oleoresin capsicum.
  68
  It was found during the trials that there was little difference between trial and control locations in the risk officers experienced of sustaining injury requiring hospital attention. Officers in trial locations were slightly less likely than those in control areas to sustain other, more minor, injuries. The officers themselves were clear that carrying CS sprays significantly improved their safety.

  There has been no subsequent evaluation carried out centrally of the effect of the introduction of CS sprays on officer injury rates. Overall statistics of assaults on officers may be affected by many factors. Statistics for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are as follows:

  1995–96

  Fatal assaults

  Serious assaults

  Other assaults

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  17

  360

  377

  Bedfordshire

  0

  51

  163

  214

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  7

  53

  60

  Cheshire

  0

  23

  632

  655

  City of London

  0

  0

  28

  28

  Cleveland

  0

  6

  116

  122

  Cumbria

  0

  2

  144

  146

  Derbyshire

  0

  6

  303

  309

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  11

  363

  374

  Dorset

  0

  6

  82

  88

  Durham

  0

  13

  200

  213

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  4

  64

  68

  Essex

  0

  15

  133

  148

  Gloucestershire

  0

  5

  88

  93

  Greater Manchester

  0

  47

  712

  759

  Gwent

  0

  7

  109

  116

  Hampshire

  0

  15

  348

  363

  Hertfordshire

  0

  4

  39

  43

  Humberside

  0

  8

  235

  243

  Kent

  0

  2

  217

  219

  Lancashire

  0

  108

  272

  380

  Leicestershire

  0

  11

  160

  171

  Lincolnshire

  0

  4

  92

  96

  Merseyside

  0

  50

  783

  833

  Metropolitan Police

  1

  78

  3,023

  3,102

  Norfolk

  0

  3

  237

  240

  North Wales

  0

  11

  187

  198

  North Yorkshire

  0

  8

  95

  103

  Northamptonshire

  0

  1

  219

  220

  Northumbria

  0

  27

  550

  577

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  9

  349

  358

  South Wales

  0

  7

  512

  519

  South Yorkshire

  0

  9

  172

  181

  Staffordshire

  0

  9

  275

  284

  Suffolk

  0

  1

  127

  128

  Surrey

  0

  4

  178

  182

  Sussex

  0

  2

  391

  393

  Thames Valley

  0

  7

  402

  409

  Warwickshire

  0

  6

  164

  170

  West Mercia

  0

  2

  230

  232

  West Midlands

  0

  208

  565

  773

  West Yorkshire

  0

  14

  522

  536

  Wiltshire

  0

  5

  112

  117

  Total

  1

  833

  14,006

  14,840

  1996–97

  Fatal assaults

  Serious assaults

  Other assaults

  Total assaults

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  9

  312

  321

  Bedfordshire

  0

  2

  180

  182

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  46

  54

  100

  Cheshire

  0

  15

  579

  594

  City of London

  0

  0

  32

  32

  Cleveland

  0

  1

  103

  104

  Cumbria

  0

  5

  156

  161

  Derbyshire

  0

  5

  295

  300

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  5

  409

  414

  Dorset

  0

  4

  88

  92

  69

  1996–97

  Fatal assaults

  Serious assaults

  Other assaults

  Total assaults

  Durham

  0

  4

  180

  184

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  13

  59

  72

  Essex

  0

  1

  132

  133

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  100

  101

  Greater Manchester

  0

  31

  724

  755

  Gwent

  0

  8

  176

  184

  Hampshire

  0

  8

  359

  367

  Hertfordshire

  0

  2

  75

  77

  Humberside

  0

  5

  250

  255

  Kent

  0

  4

  210

  214

  Lancashire

  0

  82

  254

  336

  Leicestershire

  0

  2

  218

  220

  Lincolnshire

  0

  1

  121

  122

  Merseyside

  0

  46

  856

  902

  Metropolitan Police

  0

  421

  2,859

  3,280

  Norfolk

  0

  15

  275

  290

  North Wales

  0

  4

  150

  154

  North Yorkshire

  0

  3

  84

  87

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  157

  157

  Northumbria

  0

  17

  637

  654

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  6

  378

  384

  South Wales

  0

  4

  422

  426

  South Yorkshire

  0

  7

  228

  235

  Staffordshire

  0

  11

  242

  253

  Suffolk

  0

  1

  115

  116

  Surrey

  0

  4

  200

  204

  Sussex

  0

  3

  390

  393

  Thames Valley

  0

  12

  388

  400

  Warwickshire

  0

  6

  189

  195

  West Mercia

  0

  10

  210

  220

  West Midlands

  0

  51

  1,008

  1,059

  West Yorkshire

  0

  23

  594

  617

  Wiltshire

  0

  3

  139

  142

  Total

  0

  901

  14,587

  15,488

  Notes:

  1. Serious assaults are those for which the charge would be under sections 18 and 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Other assaults are those for which the charge would be under section 47 Offence Against the Persons Act, section 38 Offences Against the Person Act, sections 51(1) and 51(3) Police Act 1964 and section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

  2. Figures for 1997–98 are not yet available

  Firearms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if registered firearms dealers will be permitted to act as referees for applicants for the granting or renewal of a firearm certificate under the Firearms Rules currently being prepared; and if he will make a statement. [45009]

  Mr. Michael
  The proposed new Firearms Rules will not permit registered firearms dealers to act as referees in applications for the grant or renewal of a firearm certificate. The Government have concluded that, despite the good character of registered firearms dealers, the risk of a conflict of commercial interest in endorsing an application could cast doubt on their impartiality.

  The only exception to this rule will be when a firearm certificate holder is applying for renewal of a certificate in respect of a firearm held for target shooting. In his Report, Lord Cullen recommended that one of the referees in these circumstances should be an official of the target shooting club of which the applicant is a member, and the Rules will therefore provide that firearms dealers who are also club officials may act as referees in these particular circumstances.
  70
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to settle claim Ref. NBRF 016830 under the terms of the Firearms Compensation Scheme. [45340]

  Mr. Michael
  The claim with the police reference number NBRF 016830 was received in the Firearms Compensation Section on 6 August 1997, and the Option A and B elements of the claim were processed on 12 November 1997. The Option C elements, which will require individual consideration of the evidence of value provided, will be dealt with as soon as possible. I outlined the timetable for these payments in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 438–39.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total of claims paid to handgun owners under option C of the Firearms Compensation Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [45387]

  Mr. Michael
  Payments amounting to £440,160 have so far been made to handgun owners under Option C of the compensation scheme. I outlined the timetable for these payments in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 438–39. These payments are in addition to the £2.6 million paid to firearms dealers under Option C, and the £49.4 million paid to owners and dealers under Options A and B of the scheme.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43322]

  Mr. Straw
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figures but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill costs for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the cost of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Electronic Monitoring
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his officials have approved the Strategic Technologies' electronic tag system; and if it is currently in use. [45397]

  Ms Quin
  Strategic Technologies' system has not been approved by the Home Office for use in England and Wales.
  71
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the test on the Strategic Technologies' electronic tag system. [45396]

  Ms Quin
  Strategic Technologies' design failed one element of the Home Office test. We understand that this is now being addressed by the manufacturer and that a new design may be submitted for acceptance testing in the near future.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any offenders who have been tagged during the current trials have had an allergic reaction to the conductive loop tag system;and what research has been carried out into the cause. [45400]

  Ms Quin
  We are not aware of any offender having an allergic reaction to the electronic monitoring equipment used during the current trials.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders who have been electronically tagged during the current trials have removed the tag without setting off the tamper alert mechanism; and what system was used. [45399]

  Ms Quin
  Of the 1,415 offenders tagged as of 8 June 1998, we are aware of three such cases. One was caused by an offender circumventing the strap of the equipment provided by Digital Products Corporation, which has since been withdrawn. The other cases were caused by critical medical information about the offender not being known to the contractor and an incorrect fitting.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his officials have conducted into the reliability of the conductive loop electronic tag system. [45398]

  Ms Quin
  All electronic monitoring equipment in England and Wales is tested, prior to its authorisation for use, against the technical criteria specified by the Home Office.

  Forensic Science Inspectorate
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish a forensic science inspectorate; and if he will make a statement. [45359]

  Mr. Michael
  As my right hon. Friend indicated in the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 21 May 1998,Official Report, columns 449–50, the Government considered three sets of proposals for oversight of forensic science, including one by Professor Caddy recommending consideration of the establishment of an Inspectorate of Forensic Science Services. In light of the progress made in recent years by the forensic science industry to promote quality and standards, including the external accreditation of laboratories by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and the British Standards Institution, we believe that the forensic science community's own proposals to establish a Registration Council for Forensic Practitioners offers the most practical way forward. The Government accordingly support the setting up of the Registration Council.

  Members' Offices (Theft)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many thefts from the offices of hon. Members have been recorded in (i) 1991, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1993, (iv) 1994, (v) 1995, (vi) 1996, (vii) 1997 and (viii) 1998. [45326]

  Mr. Michael
  The figures have been supplied by the Palace of Westminster authorities and relate to recorded offences of theft specifically from the offices of hon. and right hon. Members. Figures for 1998 are not yet available.

  Year

  Number

  1991

  38

  1992

  16

  1993

  14

  1994

  15

  1995

  5

  1996

  14

  1997

  2

  Private Prison Operators
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions private prison operators have been fined for breaking contract conditions; if he will give details; and if he will make a statement. [45618]

  Ms Quin
  There have been four occasions on which payments have been withheld from the fees paid to the contractors running privately managed prisons, as shown in the table.

  Payments withheld from contractors running privately managed prisons

  Prison

  Date

  Amount £

  Circumstances

  Blakenhurst

  February 1994

  41,167

  Temporary reduction in cell availability

  Buckley Hall

  February 1997

  526

  Reduction in payments due to failure to meet performance standards

  Parc

  April 1998

  54,782

  Non-reporting of incident

  Altcourse

  May 1998

  28,088

  Reduction in payments due to failure to meet performance standards

  Animal Refuges and Sanctuaries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce the(a) registration, (b) regulation and (c) inspection of animals in refuges and sanctuaries. [45553]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no plans to introduce specific controls in respect of animal refuges and sanctuaries. The welfare of all domestic and captive animals is provided for in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, under which it is a criminal offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to such animals.

  Police
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(1) how many police constables are currently employed in the police service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [45176]

  (2) what is the current police officer strength of the police service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [45177]

  (3) how many civilians, including traffic wardens and caterers, are employed in the police service; and if he will make a statement. [45185]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: Provisional figures supplied by the police, which are subject to validation, show that there was a total of 98,212 police constables as at 31 March 1998. The total police service strength was 126,769. The civilian strength, which includes contract catering staff, was 57,397, including 3,790 traffic wardens.

  Ministers have no direct control over police numbers. Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in their force area, within the resources available to them.

  Breathalyser Tests
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many breathalyser tests were conducted by police forces in England and Wales for each month in the last 10 years; and how many people failed. [45677]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is published annually in Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Breath Test Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library.

  Prison Visitors (Drugs)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of visitors to prisons who were arrested by the police in connection with possible drug-related offences in the last year who were subsequently charged with an offence. [45328]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 8 June 1998, Official Report, column 439.

  Police and Fire Services (Pensions)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review pension arrangements for the police and fire services. [44245]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Consultation documents on the police and fire service pension schemes were published on 31 March of this year. We have invited comments by 31 July on the issues raised in the documents. We will take careful account of the comments we receive when we come to consider any changes to the pension arrangements for new entrants to the police and fire services and to medical retirement procedures.

  Drink Licensing Laws
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to introduce legislation to amend the alcoholic drink licensing laws. [45966]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government's liquor licensing review will aim to produce general proposals, for discussion and comment, on how to modernise the present licensing regime. It is too early to set a timetable for legislation.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department last inspected the Harlan UK animal breeding establishment at Belton in north west Leicestershire; with what results; and how it ensures that the treatment of animals bred at this establishment conforms to the highest standards of animal welfare(a) at the breeding stage and (b) for the rest of their lives. [44240]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The use of protected animals in scientific procedures is controlled by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  All establishments designated under the terms of section 6 or 7 of the Act must comply with the terms and conditions of their Certificate of Designation and meet the standards set out in published Codes of Practice. All regulated procedures, including the breeding of transgenic animals, must be authorised in a project licence and all those carrying out the procedures must hold appropriate personal licence authorities.

  Inspectors visit all establishments, on both an announced and an unannounced basis, to ensure that the terms and conditions of licences and certificates are being met.

  Animals which have been used in procedures normally remain under the control and protection of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for their lifetime. Discharge from these controls must be authorised by the Secretary of State and is considered only if a veterinary surgeon has certified that the animal is unlikely to suffer any adverse effects as a result of any procedure it has been involved in.

  The Protection of Animals Act 1911 also provides for the welfare of laboratory, and other animals.

  The establishment in question was last inspected on 4 June 1998. The visit lasted for five hours. No material departures from the standards set out in the Codes of Practice, or from the terms and conditions of the Certificate and licences, were found.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per day(a) 15 and (b) 16 year old inmates of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution spend locked in their cells. [43361]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service records time prisoners spend unlocked as a Key Performance Indicator. Time out of cell is not recorded by age group, but is dependent on location and status. At Feltham, the average time out of cell for juveniles on the remand unit holding 15 and
  75
  16 year olds varies from 2 to 8 hours for weekdays. The average time out of cell for juveniles on the convicted units holding 15 and 16 year olds varies between five and eight and a half hours out of cell for weekdays. The table shows how this time out of cell varies with the type of regime a juvenile is placed on.

  Feltham: Time out of cell 15 and 16 year olds (weekdays)

  Hours

  Basic regime

  Standard regime

  Enhanced regime

  Remand over school age

  2

  4

  9

  Remand under school age

  4

  6

  9

  Sentenced (employed/USLA1)

  6

  8

  10

  Sentenced (unemployed)

  2

  6

  10

  1USLA=under school leaving age

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  "Excellence for all Children"
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish his Department's response to the consultation on the Green Paper "Excellence for all Children". [45972]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There have been many thoughtful comments on the Green Paper. Taking account of those, and of advice from the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs, we expect to publish an action programme in the early autumn.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been allocated to Birmingham under the Schools Access Initiative in each year of its operation. [45766]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Birmingham Local Education Authority has been allocated £135,000 in financial year 1996–97, £75,000 in 1997–98 and £175,000 for 1998–99 as supplementary credit approvals under the Schools Access Initiative.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are employed by his Department who are aged between 16 and 21 years, broken down by year, and of those how many are paid(a) less than £3.60 and (b) between £3.60 and £4.00 an hour. [44304]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of people employed by the Department are as follows:

  Age

  Total employed

  16

  1

  17

  3

  18

  6

  19

  13

  20

  9

  21

  29

  76
  Following implementation of the DfEE 1998 pay offer, effective from 1 April 1998, nobody employed by the Department will be paid less than £4.00 an hour.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are currently employed in(a) his Department, (b) advisory bodies and (c) executive agencies responsible to his Department; and what the comparable figures were on 1 May 1997 or the nearest available date. [44303]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the number of people employed in the DfEE and the Employment Service can be found in Annexe F of the Department's Annual Report (Cm 3910). A copy of this Report is available in the Library. There are no staff employed in advisory bodies.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the costs of(a) fees, (b) expenses and (c) other items paid to N. M. Rothschild and Lovell White Durrant in the course of the sale of the first tranche of student loan debt; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the financial agreements to facilitate the sale of the second tranche of debt. [45638]

  Dr. Howells
  Contractual arrangements, including fees paid and expenses reimbursed, in respect of advice received from N. M. Rothschild and Sons and Lovell White Durrant during the first student loan debt sale are a matter of commercial confidence.

  Rothschilds have been appointed to advise us during the second debt sale following a competitive tendering process carried out under EC directives. Lovell White Durrant's appointment as commercial legal advisers was renewed on the basis of their experience and expertise developed during the first debt sale. The financial arrangements and other terms and conditions under which both advisers have been appointed are again a matter of commercial confidence.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the national aggregate of the percentages of all maintained 11 year old pupils who are to attain Level 4 or better at Key Stage 2 in English by the year 2002 according to the targets agreed with the Government by each local education authority(a) on current pupil numbers per local education authority for 1998 and (b) on projected pupil numbers per local education authority for 2002; and if he will list the numbers of pupils per local education authority in each case. [43107]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The national target for 2002 is 80 per cent. The targets agreed with each LEA will achieve that. The numbers of pupils in each LEA who took the 1997 Key Stage 2 English test are shown. The Department does not produce projected pupil numbers by age for each local authority.
  77

  Numbers of pupils per local education authority at all levels at Key Stage 2 in English, 1997

  LEA (Post 1998 LGR)

  Number of pupils taking the 1997 English test

  201 City of London

  30

  202 Camden

  1,295

  203 Greenwich

  2,478

  204 Hackney

  1,883

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,058

  206 Islington

  1,811

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  771

  208 Lambeth

  2,156

  209 Lewisham

  2,545

  210 Southwark

  2,504

  211 Tower Hamlets

  2,583

  212 Wandsworth

  1,793

  213 City of Westminster

  1,110

  310 Barking

  1,941

  302 Barnet

  3,005

  303 Bexley

  2,590

  304 Brent

  2,637

  305 Bromley

  3,093

  306 Croydon

  3,412

  307 Ealing

  2,892

  308 Enfield

  2,972

  309 Haringey

  2,272

  310 Harrow

  2,249

  311 Havering

  2,616

  312 Hillingdon

  2,584

  313 Hounslow

  2,238

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  1,358

  315 Merton

  1,584

  316 Newham

  3,255

  317 Redbridge

  2,488

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  1,307

  319 Sutton

  1,779

  320 Waltham Forest

  2,351

  330 Birmingham

  13,053

  331 Coventry

  3,806

  332 Dudley

  3,825

  333 Sandwell

  3,753

  334 Solihull

  2,610

  335 Walsall

  3,398

  336 Wolverhampton

  3,090

  340 Knowlsey

  2,261

  341 Liverpool

  5,931

  342 St. Helens

  2,291

  343 Sefton

  3,536

  344 Wirral

  3,965

  350 Bolton

  3,475

  351 Bury

  2,149

  352 Manchester

  5,462

  353 Oldham

  3,073

  354 Rochdale

  2,736

  355 Salford

  2,768

  356 Stockport

  3,309

  357 Tameside

  2,813

  358 Trafford

  2,533

  359 Wigan

  3,828

  370 Barnsley

  2,701

  371 Doncaster

  3,849

  372 Rotherham

  3,073

  373 Sheffield

  5,614

  380 Bradford

  6,400

  381 Calderdale

  2,355

  382 Kirklees

  4,728

  383 Leeds

  8,373

  384 Wakefield

  3,935

  390 Gateshead

  2,350

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,860

  392 North Tyneside

  2,260

  393 South Tyneside

  2,132

  394 Sunderland

  3,775

  420 Isle of Scilly

  28

  78

  Numbers of pupils per local education authority at all levels at Key Stage 2 in English, 1997

  LEA (Post 1998 LGR)

  Number of pupils taking the 1997 English test

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  1,663

  801 City of Bristol

  4,109

  802 North Somerset

  1,989

  803 South Gloucestershire

  2,853

  805 Hartlepool

  1,243

  806 Middlesbrough

  2,069

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  1,945

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  2,375

  810 City of Kingston upon Hull

  3,375

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  3,683

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  2,215

  813 North Lincolnshire

  1,913

  815 North Yorkshire

  5,954

  816 York

  1,794

  820 Bedfordshire

  4,370

  821 Luton

  2,328

  825 Buckinghamshire

  4,905

  826 Milton Keynes

  2,564

  830 Derbyshire

  8,192

  831 City of Derby

  2,785

  835 Dorset

  3,924

  836 Poole

  1,359

  837 Bournemouth

  1,463

  840 Durham

  5,935

  841 Darlington

  1,134

  845 East Sussex

  4,613

  846 Brighton and Hove

  2,099

  850 Hampshire

  13,259

  851 Portsmouth

  2,069

  852 Southampton

  2,199

  855 Leicestershire

  6,822

  856 Leicester City

  3,646

  857 Rutland

  353

  860 Staffordshire

  9,548

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  2,935

  865 Wiltshire

  4,544

  866 Swindon

  2,224

  867 Bracknell Forest

  1,219

  868 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  1,294

  869 West Berkshire

  1,654

  870 Reading

  1,398

  871 Slough

  1,324

  872 Wokingham

  1,717

  873 Cambridgeshire

  5,514

  874 City of Peterborough

  1,932

  875 Cheshire

  7,656

  876 Halton

  1,847

  877 Warrington

  2,336

  878 Devon

  7,218

  879 City of Plymouth

  2,854

  880 Torbay

  1,366

  881 Essex

  14,040

  882 Southend

  1,814

  883 Thurrock

  1,599

  884 Herefordshire

  1,835

  885 Worcestershire

  5,824

  886 Kent

  14,433

  887 Medway

  3,118

  888 Lancashire

  13,926

  889 Blackburn

  2007

  890 Blackpool with Darwin

  1,574

  891 Nottinghamshire

  8,507

  892 City of Nottingham

  2,919

  893 Shropshire

  2,998

  894 Telford and Wrekin

  1,958

  908 Cornwall

  5,507

  909 Cumbria

  5,552

  916 Gloucestershire

  6,014

  919 Hertfordshire

  11,327

  79

  Numbers of pupils per local education authority at all levels at Key Stage 2 in English, 1997

  LEA (Post 1998 LGR)

  Number of pupils taking the 1997 English test

  921 Isle of Wight

  1,392

  925 Lincolnshire

  6,873

  926 Norfolk

  8,049

  928 Northamptonshire

  7,328

  929 Northumberland

  3,600

  931 Oxfordshire

  5,983

  933 Somerset

  5,255

  935 Suffolk

  7,207

  936 Surrey

  9,228

  937 Warwickshire

  5,594

  938 West Sussex

  7,444

  Disabled People
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total budget for capitation grants for disabled people in supported employment placements. [45322]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The total budget for 1998–99 for the supported employment grant, which is paid to Local Authorities and Voluntary Bodies, is £56.7 million.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what definition of disability will be used when assessing people as eligible for the training provisions set out under the Welfare to Work package; and if he will make a statement. [44979]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The New Deal for 18–24 year olds allows young people with disabilities who are claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) to choose to join the programme early. The definition of disability used for this purpose is that contained within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  To be eligible for the New Deal for Disabled People programme, disabled people and those with a long term illness must be claiming Incapacity Benefit, Income Support with a Disability Premium or Severe Disablement Allowance, or be at risk of moving onto those benefits as a result of a long term illness or disability.

  Nursery Classes
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department

  Expenditure on Access to Work elements for the last five years

  £

  Element

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Assistance with fares to work

  2,289,615

  2,616,028

  3,332,228

  3,679,465

  4,391,037

  Adaptations to vehicles

  —

  113,935

  401,175

  208,643

  96,149

  Personal reader service

  1,183,346

  1,259,351

  1,480,239

  970,361

  951,140

  Support worker

  —

  214,503

  1,032,017

  1,397,820

  1,885,934

  Special aids and equipment

  7,243,143

  10,698,285

  12,504,284

  5,513,235

  6,206,601

  Adaptations to premises and equipment

  487,586

  654,612

  1,031,340

  621,202

  822,335

  Communicator support at interview

  —

  48,702

  59,890

  38,876

  45,759

  Miscellaneous support

  —

  116,486

  146,453

  136,089

  187,860

  Total

  11,203,690

  15,721,902

  19,987,626

  12,565,691

  14,586,815

  80
  has made of the average number of children in each pre-year 1 nursery class in maintained schools in the most recent year for which information is available. [44985]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: The average size of reception classes in mainland primary schools in England was 25.8 in January 1998.

  Child Care
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of his Ministers has the lead responsibility for child care issues. [45793]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have the lead responsibility for the National Childcare Strategy in England. I work closely with Ministerial colleagues within the Department for Education and Employment and elsewhere, including the Ministers for Women. I also work closely with Ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office who are each launching their own child care consultations focusing on the particular issues in those parts of the United Kingdom.

  Access to Work (Wheelchairs)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the money spent during the past five years for financial assistance to purchase wheelchairs through Access to Work has been spent on(a) indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs and (b) manual wheelchairs. [44679]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Peter Collis to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 15 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the financial assistance given towards the purchase of wheelchairs through the Access to Work programme during the past five years. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as the Chief Executive of the Employment Service. I am replying in his absence.
  I am afraid that we do not hold information centrally on the number of grants made under Access to Work for wheelchairs or their cost. I attach a table detailing expenditure under Access to Work over the last five years broken down by the main categories of expenditure. Expenditure on wheelchairs falls within the Special Aids and Equipment category.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  New Deal (Foyer Organisations)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those Foyer organisations currently contracted to provide(a) the Gateway service, (b) services to the unemployed and (c) other services in the delivery of the New Deal. [45096]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The following Foyer organisations have contracted directly with the Employment Service to provide Gateway services to New Deal clients. All of these contracts offer services to the unemployed in the delivery of the New Deal.

  Camberwell Foyer

  Sheffield Foyer

  St. Helens Foyer

  Western Foyer

  Swindon Foyer

  Yeovil Foyer

  Darlington Foyer1

  Ipswich Foyer1

  Cambridge Foyer1

  Lincolnshire Foyer1

  1 As part of local consortia

  Organisations contracted to the Employment Service to deliver elements of the New Deal may themselves enter into sub-contracts with other organisations. Information on such sub-contracts is available only locally and is not held centrally. Foyers holding such sub-contracts may not be included in the list.

  EU Structural Funds
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what method of scoring was used to assess the 1998 bids for funding under Objective 3 of the European Social Fund programme. [44418]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Key principles of the 1998 Objective 3 scoring process were that it should be impartial and transparent, with the aim of selecting the best quality projects which met the needs of the Objective 3 client groups. Selection criteria and a scoring framework were developed in consultation with regional partners, and endorsed by the Objective 3 National Monitoring Committee.

  Projects were assessed against four main areas: labour market justification, integration, beneficiary analysis and outcomes. Each region also had flexibility to influence the scoring process to reflect regional aims and priorities.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the definition of unemployed for the purposes of the bids for funding under Objective 3 of the 1998 European Social Fund's programme. [44419]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  For the purposes of the European Social Fund (ESF), the general definition of unemployment is a period where a person is not in paid employment. Registration with the Employment Service is not required as evidence of unemployment. A more detailed definition of unemployment is in the ESF 1998 Applications Guidance part 1, which is available in the Library.
  82
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the scoring of bids for funding under Objective 3 of the 1998 European Social Fund's programme was monitored for accuracy. [44426]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Objective 3 Regional Committees and the Committees for Scotland, Wales and Gibraltar are responsible for the implementation of Objective 3 in their areas, in line with the Single Programming Document for Great Britain. A sub-committee of the Great Britain Monitoring Committee deals with national projects.

  Regional and national scoring panels held standard setting exercises and took steps to maintain standards and to moderate scores. Scorers operated in pairs and switched around regularly. Some projects were re-scored by different scorers to ensure consistency in approach. Panel chairs ensured the impartiality and veracity of the process.

  Applicants were informed of their scores and were given the opportunity to challenge them, and to appeal formally against the decision of the relevant Committee or GB National Monitoring Committee.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of his Department's preparedness to meet the 1 January 2000 start date for the Agenda 2000 Structural Fund Programme. [43838]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Negotiation of the Commission's proposed Regulations for the Structural Funds in the period 2000 to 2006 have begun during the UK Presidency of the EU. Good progress is being made. It is too early to determine the detailed implementation of the new Funds but my Department will be ready to administer the European Social Fund from its agreed start date.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to speed up payments to voluntary sector organisations running projects under the European Social Fund. [43846]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 27 March 1998,Official Report, column 337.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the costs were in each year since 1990 of administering European Structural Fund programmes in England. [43840]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The figures in the table show the running costs of the European Social Fund in the Department for Education and Employment, and include some costs associated with the administration of ESF in Scotland and Wales which it is not possible to identify separately. The increase since 1990 is due to the increase in the sums administered in Great Britain and to the increasing complexity of the work involved.

  European social fund unit: running costs budget

  Year

  1990–91

  0.531

  1991–92

  0.808

  1992–93

  1.410

  1993–94

  1.701

  1994–95

  2.212

  1995–96

  2.387

  1996–97

  2.557

  1997–98

  2.705

  83
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many permanent and short-term staff are employed by his Department to administer(a) the European Social Fund, (b) the European Regional Development Fund and (c) other European Structural Fund programmes in the United Kingdom. [43845]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Department for Education and Employment Head Office currently has 87.6 permanent staff in post on the administration of the 84
  European Social Fund (ESF). It also has 30 short term staff in post to cope with peaks in workload, equivalent to 12.5 full-time posts averaged over the whole year. None of our full-time staff is involved in the administration of the European Regional Development Fund, but about 0.5 per cent. of a permanent post is involved in policy matters.

  The equivalent of approximately 40 full time posts from this Department are funded by the DfEE in the Government Offices for the regions on the administration of the European Structural Fund programmes.

HEALTH

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make emergency contraception more widely available in the United Kingdom. [43702]

  Ms Jowell
  As a prescription only medicine under United Kingdom and European Community legislation, the emergency contraceptive pill is currently available from general practitioners, family planning clinics, some accident and emergency units and many genito-urinary clinics. Currently no applications have been received to reclassify the product to allow wider availability.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of emergency contraception on the National Health Service in each of the last five years. [43489]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  The number of National Health Service prescriptions for hormonal emergency contraception dispensed in England, and the cost of those drugs (excluding dispensing costs and fees), for the past five years is:

  Year

  Prescription items

  Net ingredient costs(£)

  1993

  313,300

  450,800

  1994

  363,800

  520,800

  1995

  475,400

  678,500

  1996

  565,600

  900,200

  1997

  552,800

  897,700

  Excluded from these figures are occasions on which post-coital contraception was obtained via a family planning clinic service. These are (corresponding costs are not held):

  Year

  Prescription items

  1992–93

  68,600

  1993–94

  82,800

  1994–95

  102,200

  1995–96

  145,300

  1996–97

  174,900

  In addition, intrauterine devices may be used as a form of post-coital contraceptive. Comprehensive figures for their use or costs are not held centrally.

  Independent Advocacy
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution he plans that(a) professional and (b) voluntary citizens' advocacy will make to improving access to services by people with learning difficulties and people with acute mental health difficulties. [44338]
  86
  Mr. Boateng
  We attach great importance to advocacy for people with learning disabilities and people with acute mental health problems, and provide central government funding for the voluntary sector in this area. We have also issued guidance to health authorities and social services which includes the need to consider making appropriate arrangements for independent advocacy.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of complementary medicine organisations in the proposed network of healthy living centres. [44375]

  Ms Jowell
  The aim of the healthy living centres initiative is to target areas containing the most deprived sections of the population in order to reduce health inequalities and improve the health of the worst off in society. Within this context proposals for local healthy living centres could include the provision of complementary therapies if they would contribute to achieving local health priorities. These would need to be evaluated for effectiveness.

  Wheelchair Service
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce what input users will have into the new national service frameworks for the wheelchair service. [44669]

  Mr. Boateng
  The initial programme of national service frameworks will take forward the existing frameworks for cancer and paediatric intensive care and will begin to develop new frameworks for mental health and coronary heart disease. Suggestions for the next phase of the programme are welcome. However, there will usually be only one topic every year.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific guidelines have been issued by his Department or the NHS Executive on the procedures to be followed by health authorities and NHS trusts for consultation with user groups of the wheelchair service; and if he will set out those guidelines. [44663]

  Mr. Boateng
  When National Health Service provision of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs was introduced in 1996 the NHS Executive issued guidelines which stated that users and their representative groups should be involved in the development of local eligibility criteria. These guidelines, and the guidelines issued when the wheelchair voucher scheme was introduced in the same year, also encouraged wheelchair services to use, or consult, the specialist staff of voluntary disability organisations who may have particular expertise in dealing with people with specific disabilities.

  A series of national and regional conferences has promoted the involvement of users and their representatives in the development, monitoring and evaluation of wheelchair services.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to ensure that funding for the wheelchair voucher scheme which has been carried
  87
  over to the financial year 1998–99 (a) remains ring-fenced and (b) is not diverted to mainstream wheelchair provision which is not ring-fenced. [44661]

  Mr. Boateng
  No funding made available for the wheelchair voucher scheme in 1997–98 was carried over to 1998–99.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific guidelines have been issued by his Department or the NHS Executive on the procedures for users chairing user groups on the wheelchair service. [44668]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such guidelines have been issued. The procedures adopted by user groups are for the group themselves to determine in the light of the activities which they wish to pursue.

  However, the Department's national user involvement project seeks to increase the involvement of people who use community services in decisions made about what services are offered. In 1996 the project published "Community Service Users as Consultants and Trainers", a guide to user participation in community care planning.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements his Department has made to monitor how funding is spent in the event of an underspend of(a) the indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair funding scheme and (b) the voucher funding scheme. [44662]

  Mr. Boateng
  Spending on the indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair funding schemes and the voucher funding scheme for manual wheelchairs is monitored centrally through the routine quarterly return process. In 1997–98, following evidence of a potential underspend on wheelchair vouchers, action was taken to ensure that the money was retained in the wheelchair service and used to provide chairs for more patients.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations were held with groups in advance of communication of the Health Service Circular, wheelchair voucher scheme: funding in 1997–98 and 1998–99 (HSC 1998–004); and if he will list the groups consulted. [44660]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on 4 June 1998,Official Report, column 336.

  Paediatric Cardiac Unit (Bristol Royal Infirmary)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the start date of the period to be covered by the inquiry he is considering into events at the paediatric cardiac unit at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. [44578]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have made clear our commitment to holding an inquiry into the paediatric cardiac surgery services at the United Bristol Healthcare National Health Service Trust prior to 1996. The exact form, timing and scope of the inquiry and the membership of the inquiry team are currently under consideration. A final decision will be announced after the General Medical Council have completed their proceedings later this month.

  Care Homes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the care homes with education currently in operation in London and the South East; and how many have closed in the last five years. [45012]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested as at 31 March 1997 is in the table. Information on the closure of homes is not held centrally.

  Children's homes with educational facilities at 31 March 1997, London and South East (Government Office Regions)

  Local Authorities

  Homes

  Maintained community homes

  Buckinghamshire

  Heathercroft

  Croydon

  Kempfield

  Hammersmith

  Stamford House

  Hampshire

  2 Cambridge Road

  Hampshire

  Glen House (Avon & Hamble)

  Newham

  101 Dongola Road

  Oxfordshire

  Thornbury House

  Southwark

  Orchard Lodge Regional Resource Centre

  Surrey

  The Oaks Centre for Children

  Waltham Forest

  North and Central Resource Centre

  West Sussex

  Shermanbury Grange

  West Sussex

  St. Christopher's

  West Sussex

  Beechfield

  Private registered children's homes

  Berkshire

  Swaay

  Bexley

  Chartswood

  Croydon

  Tudor Lodge

  Ealing

  Martin Fisher School

  East Sussex

  Beacon Lodge

  Hampshire

  Allington Manor

  Hounslow

  More House

  Kent

  Next Step

  Kent

  Lynstead Children's Services

  Kent

  Sandyridge

  Kent

  The Brolly Programme

  Kent

  The Brolly Programme

  Newham

  20/24 Earlham Grove

  Newham

  20/24 Earlham Grove

  Oxfordshire

  Hillcrest Ltd, Steps

  Surrey

  Apple Orchard

  Surrey

  Tudor Lodge

  Surrey

  Cornerways

  Surrey

  The Oaks Centre

  Wandsworth

  Chartswood Wandsworth

  West Sussex

  Hillcrest Slinford

  West Sussex

  Gleniffer House

  Westminster

  Mahala Wheatle

  Dual registered schools

  East Sussex

  Downshead

  East Sussex

  Frant Court

  Haringey

  Limewood

  Registered residential care homes

  Islington

  Tufnell House

  Kent

  The Rowan

  Assisted community homes

  Bromley

  Barnados/Knotley

  Voluntary children's homes

  Voluntary Home

  Cumberlow

  (S. Norwood, London)

  Paediatric Nose and Throat Operations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority or trusts the average waiting time for paediatric nose and throat operations after referral to a consultant. [45013]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not available centrally, since waiting times information is collected only by medical specialty.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics are collated by(a) the Government and (b) the European Commission on incidents of food poisoning in each EU member state; and if he will publish them. [45118]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) collates statutory food poisoning notifications, data on laboratory confirmed cases of gastrointestinal infection and outbreak data on foodborne illness in humans in England and Wales. This information is published in PHLS's Communicable Disease Report (CDR), copies of which are available in the Library.

  The European Union does not routinely collect such information. The Scientific Co-operation Directive has a number of initiatives in hand to identify the sources of communicable disease surveillance data within Member States. The Commission supports the publication "Eurosurveillance" which provides data from surveillance networks in Member States, copies of which are available in the Library. PHLS is part of the "Enter-net" on international surveillance network which involves 15 countries within the EU. The network allows the exchange of information on reported cases of enteric infection due to Salmonella and verocytotoxin producing Escherichia coli between the countries involved. Information on "Enter-net" can be found in CDR.

  Consultants (Discretionary Points)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct trust boards to publicise which consultants have discretionary points. [45274]

  Mr. Milburn
  Discretionary points are decided and funded locally by the National Health Service employer, and it will be for the individual employer to decide whether to publish this information.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has agreed to implement the Calman/Hine recommendations for cancer services in the North Thames Region of the National Health Service. [45297]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 14 May 1998,Official Report, columns 206–07.

  Health Quality Service
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the terms of the contract between the King's Fund and the NHS to provide Health Quality Services; and to whom the surveyors are contracted; [45411]
  90
  (2) if the Health Quality Service surveyors are wholly employed by the National Health Service and seconded to the survey; how many days a week on average they work for the survey; what are their qualifications; and how many of them there are; [45405]

  (3) how many health trusts and authorities will be surveyed by the Health Quality Service survey; and if the survey will be extended to private sector hospitals; [45404]

  (4) what is the budgeted cost to the NHS of the Health Quality Service surveyors. [45407]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Health Quality Service is independent of Government. There is no central contract between the King's Fund and the National Health Service to provide Health Quality Services, and the number of NHS and private sector organisations surveyed, the terms under which this work is carried out and the terms under which surveyors are engaged are matters for the Health Quality Service and those organisations which engage its services. No estimate has been made of the cost to the NHS of Health Quality Service surveyors.

  Bed and Breakfasts (Food Poisoning)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports his Department has received in each of the past five years of cases of food poisoning originating in unlicensed bed and breakfast establishments in England and Wales. [45374]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on sporadic cases of food poisoning originating in unlicensed bed and breakfast establishments is not available centrally. Current outbreak data is not detailed enough to identify information on food poisoning incidents from these types of establishments. Information on general outbreaks of food poisoning is published quarterly in the Communicable Disease Report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Medical Treatment (Ex-gratia Payments)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities on the circumstances in which they can make ex-gratia payments to patients whose health has suffered as a result of medical treatment; and if health authorities are entitled to make such payments to women who have suffered permanent injury after having been in receipt of radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer. [45266]

  Mr. Boateng
  Specific guidance on clinical negligence claims handling has been issued by the National Health Service Executive in Executive Letter (96) 11, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Health authorities may make ex-gratia payments in accordance with this guidance.

  Health Services Accreditation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many expressions of interest have been received for the disposal of Health Services Accreditation; [45412]

  (2) whether National Audit Office criteria for the disposal of a state-owned function apply to Health Services Accreditation; [45413]
  91
  (3) whether Health Service Guidelines NHS Trading Agencies: Future Arrangements No HSC(94)54 Annex B by Price Waterhouse on the disposal process applies to Health Services Accreditation.[45414]

  Mr. Milburn
  Both the National Audit Office criteria for the disposal of a state owned function and the Health Service Guidelines "NHS Trading Agencies: Future Arrangements" Health Service Circular (94)54 are being applied wherever they are applicable to the disposal of Health Service Accreditation.

  As the process of disposal is underway, the exact number of expressions of interest is commercially sensitive information.

  Runaway Children
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in England he estimates ran away from home last year; and if he will make a statement. [45210]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply on the same issue given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 27.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the balance between supply and demand of GPs in the National Health Service in the next three years. [45478]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are advised on these matters by the Specialty Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG). SWAG balances a range of factors in considering the numbers of doctors in training to meet future requirements, including the overall supply of junior doctors and healthcare needs across the whole of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take to encourage the recruitment of GPs to the NHS. [45479]

  Mr. Milburn
  Measures have been put in place to encourage the recruitment of general practitioners to the National Health Service.

  These include changes to the out-of-hours arrangements for GPs which impact on the quality of their working life, making it easier for them to combine work and family life.

  Flexible employment opportunities such as the salaried GP scheme and an improved retainer scheme to encourage GPs to return after career breaks have been introduced. These are especially important given the numbers of women entering general practice and the need to provide alternatives to the independent contractor GP model of employment.

  The introduction of Primary Care Act (Personal Medical Services) Pilots and flexibilities to the national GP contract given GPs scope to shape the range of services they provide and increase the attractiveness of general practice as a career choice.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many PFI projects his Department has put out to re-tender during the last year; and what is their combined value. [45469]

  Mr. Milburn
  No Private Finance Initiative projects with a capital value of more than £10 million have been put out to re-tender since 1 May 1997.

  Details on individual schemes with a capital cost of less than £10 million are not held centrally.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were in care in England and Wales on 1 June. [45446]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were 51,200 children looked after in England at 31 March 1996, which is the latest date for which such statistics are available. Figures for the year ending 31 March 1997 are due to be published in July 1998. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Child Developmental Checks
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities carry out 18 to 24 month developmental checks on(a) a selective basis and (b) all children; [45718]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998, Official Report, column 130, if the guidance issued by his Department recommends that 18 to 24 month developmental checks should be carried out on all children. [45717]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department's guidance recommends that developmental checks are carried out on all children aged 18–24 months, as part of a core programme of child health surveillance. We do not monitor its implementation by health authority. However, in 1997 94 per cent. of general practitioners were involved in arranging for these checks to be carried out.

  Needle Exchanges
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued to NHS trusts concerning the location of needle exchanges and local drug rehabilitation facilities. [45441]

  Ms Jowell
  Guidance sent to health authorities in 1988 and 1992 about the provision of needle exchange schemes notes that the geographic location of a scheme will influence its ability to attract and retain clients. The guidance says that schemes should be set up in areas which have a high prevalence of injecting drug misuse. When selecting a site, consideration should be given to the proximity of local residences, the preservation of clients' anonymity, and the ease with which clients will be able to use the scheme. However, it is for the local health authority, local authority and providers of services to decide what is appropriate for local circumstances. Copies of Health Circular (88)53 and Executive Letter (92)47 are available in the Library.
  93
  The Department has not issued any guidance on the location of drug rehabilitation schemes. The location of these services is also for local decision.

  Leeds Health Authority
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what share Leeds Health Authority has received of the(a) £300 million to address winter pressures, (b) £1.2 billion allocation, (c) £500 million to reduce waiting lists, (d) funding for districts facing major organisational change and (e) other special allocations for 1998–99. [45758]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  £000

  (1)Total for England

  (2)Allocation to Leeds HA cash

  (a) winter pressures1

  159,000

  3,089

  (b) HA revenue allocations growth 1998–992

  1,028,000

  15,900

  (c) waiting lists3

  288,000

  4,276

  (d) special assistance (funding for HAs facing organisational change)

  47,600

  6,500

  (e) other special allocations for 1998–994

  1,971,517

  24,917

  1Of the £300 million made available to the National Health Service for winter pressures, £269 million was for the NHS in England. £159 million was allocated to health authorities, £30 million was generated through efficiency savings and £80 million was used to fund Family Health Services expenditure, including the Drugs Bill.

  2Of the £1.2 billion allocated to the NHS last July, £1 billion was for the NHS in England.

  3Of the £500 million made available to the NHS for waiting lists, £417 million was for the NHS in England. £288 million is to be used for direct elective admissions, £32 million will be used on performance indicators and £65 million will be used on "whole system" action to reduce waiting lists. No decisions have yet been made about the remaining £32 million.

  Leeds Health Authority will also be able to bid for funds from the £65 million announced in Health Services Circular 1998–2006 for "whole system" action to support reductions in waiting lists.

  4Special allocations are funds for specific services allocated to health authorities through a weighted capitation formula or by another method specific to that allocation.

  For 1998–99 these cover—

  General Medical Services cash limited

  Out of hours development fund

  Joint finance

  Drug misuse

  HIV prevention

  AIDS treatment and care

  Old long stay.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will issue guidance to commissioners on how best to undertake local needs assessment and planning, including carers needs, to inform local health improvement programmes; [45734]

  (2) if he will issue further guidance to health authorities and primary care groups on the partnership strategies that should be adopted in relation to parents and carers; and how their representation is to be secured in the commissioning process; [45733]
  94
  (3) if, in response to the report Ignored and Invisible: Carers Experiences of the NHS, he will strengthen guidance to health authorities, trusts and primary health care teams on implementing the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; [45732]

  (4) what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the report Ignored and Invisible: Carers Experiences of the NHS. [45735]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 10 June that I will be leading a Government-wide review of measures to help carers as part of a national strategy for carers. Our strategy will bring together a range of existing initiatives and policies from across Government and will also examine how the problems faced by carers could be tackled by new initiatives and policies. It is too early to say what the outcome of our review will be, but the report "Ignored and Invisible?" will be a real help in identifying areas where there is a need for change. We will be setting up an independent group for carers' organisations and others to give advice to Ministers and policy makers and expect to consult on the strategy early in 1999.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the form of expansion of the Whittington Hospital; what proportion of the expenditure will come from public sources; and if he will make a statement. [45393]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Whittington Hospital National Health Service Trust is presently working on its strategy for developing services on the site. This will help to determine the extent and nature of the redevelopment needed, and to ensure that the investment provides an appropriate solution for the future.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to declare Camden and Islington a health action zone. [45386]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have invited 34 areas, including Camden and Islington, to submit an expression of interest in applying for the second wave of Health Action Zones. From these will be selected the candidates to join the 11 Health Action Zones from the first wave. It is too early to say if Camden and Islington will form part of the second wave.

  Homicide Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 16 February 1998,Official Report, columns 494–95, 13 March 1998, Official Report, column 377, and 5 June 1998, Official Report, column 407, if he will provide a complete list of all inquiries currently under way which have been established under HSG(94)27, giving the full title of each inquiry, the commissioning authority in each case, the name of the chairperson in each case and, where known, the likely reporting date of each inquiry. [45639]
  95
  Mr. Boateng
  A complete list of inquiries currently under way is shown in the table.

  Region

  Name—commissioning authority

  Chairperson

  Anticipated publication date

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Mr. A. J.—County Durham

  Mr. Arthur Taylor

  End July

  Mr. J.C.—Tees

  Mr. Tony Brown

  December

  Trent

  Mr. B. S-P.—Leicestershire

  Prof. M. Gunn

  Not available

  Mr. M. C.—Nottingham

  Prof. M. Gunn

  Not available

  Anglia and Oxford

  Mr. G. N.—Bedfordshire

  Not available

  Not available

  A. M.—Berkshire

  Mr. R. Willams

  July

  Mr. A. C.—Berkshire

  Not available

  Not available

  Mr. S. A.—Berkshire

  Not available

  Not available

  Mr. N. A.—Bucks

  V. Rubenstein

  Not available

  Mr. P. H.—East Norfolk

  W. Armstrong

  July

  Mr. K. B.—East Norfolk

  Not available

  Not available

  North Thames

  Mr. R. L.—North Essex

  Kieran Coonan

  15 June

  Mr. M. D.—North Essex

  Peter Herbert

  November

  T. K.—Camden and Islington

  Not available

  Not available

  Mr. P. L.—Brent and Harrow

  Not available

  Not available

  Mr. W. M.—Brent and Harrow

  Not available

  December

  Mr. P. Rees—Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Not available

  Not available

  Mr. K. K.—Enfield and Haringey

  Not available

  October

  Mr. M. E.—Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  Ken Dixon

  December

  South Thames

  Mr. W. H.—Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Kieran Coonan

  Not available

  Mr. M. F.—Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Baroness Patricia Scotland

  Not available

  South West

  Mr. D. E.—Southampton and South West Hants

  Ms Geraldine Johns

  July

  Mr. S. B.—Dorset

  Prof. Genevra Richardson

  Not available

  North West

  Mr. D. H.—East Lancashire

  Mr. Greenwood

  September

  Mr. B.—Bolton

  Mr. R. Lingham

  September

  West Midlands

  None

  —

  —

  Titles of inquiries are not always available until publication but a recognised format is as follows:
  "Report of the Independent Inquiry Team into the care and treatment of X (name)".

  There are now 25 inquiries under way.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children he estimates are in homeless households; and if he will make a statement. [45209]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the fourth quarter of 1997 about 60 per cent. of the households for whom local authorities accepted responsibility to secure accommodation (under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts) included one or more dependent children.

  The available data on the numbers of children are as follows:

  Number

  Total number of households accepted as homeless

  24,810

  Of which:

  households with dependent children

  1 child

  6,470

  2 children

  4,540

  3 or more children

  3,390

  14,400

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Structural Funds
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the population is of each UK region currently receiving Objective 1 structural funds from the European Union. [45302]

  Mrs. Roche
  The estimated population figures for 1995 are:

  Population

  Highlands and Islands

  373,000

  Merseyside

  1,427,200

  Northern Ireland

  1,649,000

  Note:

  The Highlands and Islands Objective 1 area corresponds to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement(a) on the Government's policy towards the Süzen Judgment in connection with the Acquired Rights Directive and (b) on the European Council's recent consideration of proposed changes to the Directive. [45998]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The UK Presidency achieved a notable success at a Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg on 4 June in securing Member States' agreement to a revision of this Directive. Amongst other improvements, the revised Directive will include a new broad definition of a transfer of an undertaking. This
  97
  draws on the European Court's judgments in Süzen and other leading cases, without relying on any of them exclusively, in order to clarify the Directive's scope without in any way diminishing employees' existing rights. As we indicated in our "Fairness at Work" White Paper, the Government intend to amend the UK's implementing legislation, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (commonly known as the TUPE Regulations), in order to improve its operation. The revision of the Directive gives us a much sounder basis for doing so than would otherwise have been the case.

  Restrictive Practices
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list all registered restrictive practice agreements involving trade associations. [44984]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 requires the Director General of Fair Trading to maintain a public register of qualifying agreements. The register is open to the public. For convenience I am asking him to write to the hon. Member to provide the information requested, and place a copy of that information in the Library of the House.

  Local Authorities (Pilot Schemes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the pilot schemes announced since 1 May by her Department that involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity; if she will list each of the local authorities involved in each case; and what revenue and capital funding each local authority will receive through the pilot in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–2001.[45336]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: The DTI has announced no pilot schemes since 1 May 1997 that involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity.

  Utilities Regulation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list those organisations which have submitted a formal response to the Green Paper on utilities regulation. [45039]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: Over 200 representations have been received in response to the Utility Review Green Paper. A full list of those that have submitted representations will be published when the conclusions of the review are announced.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on progress towards attaining Investors in People Awards of(a) employment tribunals, (b) the Insolvency Service, (c) the Radiocommunications Agency and (d) the Patent Office; when she estimates each will achieve accreditation; and if she will make a statement on the role of Investors in People within her Department. [44928]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Department, the Employment Tribunals Service, the Insolvency Service, the Radiocommunications Agency and the Patent Office all 98
  aim to meet the target set by the Development and Training White Paper (Cm 3321) that by the year 2000 all civil servants will be employed in organisations recognised as Investors in People.

  All have made a written commitment to meeting the Investors in People standard. The headquarters Department will be seeking assessment later this year, the Employment Tribunals Service in September 1998, and Radiocommunications Agency in January 1999. The Insolvency Service is currently working towards assessment in December 1998. The Patent Office is currently in the process of assessment.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I strongly support the emphasis which Investors in People places on training and developing all staff, and see the journey towards recognition as making an important contribution towards best practice in management in the Department.

  Competition Act
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions her Department had with the Office of Fair Trading concerning the publication of "A Guide to the Major Provisions of the Competition Act 1998". [45170]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My officials have been in regular contact with their counterparts in the OFT about the guidelines that are to be published under clause 52 of the Competition Bill, including the draft of the one on the major provisions of the Competition Act 1998.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) British and (b) Indonesian companies involved in the Cikampek to Padalarang Toll Road project in Indonesia; what expenditure has been (i) allocated and (ii) incurred by her Department to date; what is the state of progress with the project; and if she will make a statement. [44982]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: In 1987 the DTI offered Cementation International Ltd. and Cleveland Bridge Engineering Ltd. (then part of Trafalgar House Construction International Ltd. and now part of the Kvaerner Group), Overseas Project Fund assistance of £198,000 towards their pre-contractual costs in pursuing the project. All this financial assistance was spent by the companies in pursuit of the project by July 1989. Trafalgar House International Ltd. formed a joint venture with PT Yala Perkasa International, an Indonesian company, to design and construct the toll road.

  I am informed that progress with this project has been delayed for environmental, administrative and financial reasons.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the foreign direct investments by UK companies in Indonesia which have been cancelled, suspended or reviewed by the Indonesian Government in the last 12 months(a) as a condition of the IMF assistance programme, (b) as a result of links with the family of former President Suharto and (c) for any other reason, in

  99
  each case specifying the reason and stating the nature and value of the investment and the expenditure incurred to date; and if she will make a statement. [44983]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: To cope with the sharp depreciation of the Rupiah, a Presidential Decree was issued on 20 September 1997 which postponed and put under review 156 infrastructure projects, worth about US$37 billion. Among these projects, three involve UK companies, but we do not have firm details of the value of the investment, or expenditure incurred to date. As far as we are aware, no project has been cancelled as a result of links with the family of former President Suharto.

  It is not possible to assess accurately the value of investment cancelled for any other reason.

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for which countries in respect of which at least one arms export licence application was rejected, no arms export licences have been granted since May 1997. [44334]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 10 May 1998, six countries were the stated consignee or end-user destination on one or more refused applications for Standard or Open Individual Export Licences that covered goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, but were not the stated consignee or end-user destination on any such licence issued in that period. These countries were Armenia, Croatia, Iran, Nigeria, Paraguay and Sudan.

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71. It does not, of course, include Media OIELs, which are Open Individual Export Licences authorising the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists when working in areas of conflict. If Media OIELs were taken into account, no countries would meet the definition.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations she has received concerning the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will publish them.[45355]

  Mrs. Roche
  This Department has received many representations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) from interested parties. These representations were not made to us on the basis that they would be made public.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which multi-national companies she has consulted on the future of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will publish their replies. [45354]

  Mrs. Roche
  This Department has been in close touch with British business throughout the negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), notably via the CBI and the International Chambers of Commerce 100
  (ICC-UK). Our consultation with industry was not carried out on the understanding that their responses would be made public.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on progress with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [45356]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government welcome the decision by OECD Ministers at the Ministerial meeting of 27–28 April 1998 to extend the negotiating for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), seeking a successful and timely conclusion. The next negotiating session for officials at the OECD will be in October. We intend to use the intervening period for further assessment and consultation with interested parties. We will continue to work for our key aims to be met: we are seeking strong provisions on environmental and labour standards, an agreement attractive to developing countries, and an acceptable balance between the commitments we take on and the commitments offered by others.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has held concerning the environmental aspects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will make a statement. [45384]

  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers and officials from this Department are in constant contact across Whitehall and with NGOs and other interested parties on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), including on its environmental aspects. The Government will continue to press for strong language on the environment in the MAI and would not support an Agreement which failed to address these issues.

  ACP Countries
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions her Department has held with representatives or individual members of the Group of 77 ACP countries; and if she will make a statement. [45357]

  Mrs. Roche
  The department has regular discussions with many individual developing countries and with developing country regional groupings on a wide range of trade and investment related issues.

  Vertical Agreements
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of vertical agreements, with particular reference to suppliers using selective distribution, on competitive practices and consumers. [44408]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: Recent work on vertical agreements has been undertaken in the context of the European Commission Green Paper on Vertical Restraints (Distribution Agreements) in EC Competition Policy and of the Competition Bill that is currently before Parliament. In addition the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) have investigated vertical agreements in a number of specific sectors of the economy.

  Wide consultations were held on the European Commission Green Paper during which more than 80 responses were received. The assessment of the Commission's proposal also took into account the views

  101
  of the OFT and the earlier OFT Research paper on Vertical Restraints and Competition Policy (published in December 1996).

  Patents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations she has received from the Royal Society on harmonising the dates accorded to patents in different counties; and if she will urge the Council of Ministers to adopt the US system of having research note-books signed daily, and notarised by a lawyer at regular intervals. [45762]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received no representations from the Royal Society on the issue of dates accorded under patent law. However, I am aware of discussion on this topic in relation to United States patent law.

  The United States stands almost alone in the world in basing the grant of patent rights upon evidence of being first to invent. This leads to auditory overheads on researchers, such as the need to have note-books signed daily and notarised regularly. In Europe and elsewhere the simpler approach of being first to file an application is the determinant for the grant of rights, and this approach is key in reducing auditory and administrative burdens on researchers and business. To move to the US system would add to the burdens of all applicants seeking rights in Europe.

  United States patent law has recently become more liberal as far as foreign inventors are concerned. Prior to 1996 all research establishing a date of invention for patent purposes in the United States had to be carried out there. With the advent of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and especially its Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), the United States was obliged to change its law so that research and development carried out in any WTO country is now acceptable for establishing a date of invention.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions Ministers have met representatives of(a) small businesses and (b) the Federation of Small Businesses. [44704]

  Mrs. Beckett
  (a) DTI Ministers regularly meet representatives of small businesses at meetings, receptions, conferences, and other engagements they undertake.

  (b) DTI Ministers have met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, formally, on the following occasions:
  President of the Board of Trade: 1
  Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry: 5 (and 2 telephone calls)
  Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs: 3.

  Takeover Bids
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce proposals resulting from a review of the workings of the MMC and OFT to improve efficiency in determining the implications of takeover bids. [44471]
  102
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: In the summer of 1997 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) set up a joint working party to examine the scope for streamlining their procedures for handling merger cases, with the aim of reducing the burden on organisations which provide information to them. As a result, the arrangements for presentations made by the OFT to the MMC during a merger inquiry have been refined to enable the MMC to gain a better understanding of the main issues more swiftly, thereby helping it to focus its lines of inquiry. The working party is now considering whether the form used to prenotify the OFT formally of a merger can be modified in order to simplify and improve the effectiveness of the information-gathering procedures. In addition, the OFT and MMC have established a forum with lawyers from City law firms to consider possibilities for further streamlining of the way in which the OFT and MMC gather information.

  Enemy Property
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the progress made since her Department's public statement on 3 April, with the review which she is conducting on compensation for people whose assets were seized under the policy adopted during the Second World War towards enemy property. [44710]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: On 30 April 1998, Official Report, column 242, I announced the publication on the Internet, of about 25,000 records of those residents of Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Japan and Romania whose property was confiscated under the Trading With the Enemy legislation. A further 5,000 records for other countries will be published, also on the Internet, as soon as possible.

  My statement on 3 April indicated that the Government would set up a claims procedure and that a suitable independent third party would be asked to advise on the form of the scheme the Government should adopt. I hope to be able to make an announcement about the appointment of such an individual shortly. In the meantime, my officials continue to register potential claimants' interest in the scheme.

  Human Rights
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 24 April 1998,Official Report, column 722, on human rights, if she will state which aspects of the Government's human rights policy are her Department's responsibilities. [44876]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: The Department supports the FCO's lead in this area, notably on matters relating to international trade policy, ethical trading, employment rights, and the application of strategic export controls.

  Utility Regulators
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what measures she will implement to ensure that the utilities regulators co-ordinate their activities to achieve the Government's pledged reduction in carbon dioxide emissions; [44879]
  103
  (2) what action she will take to ensure that the new gas and electricity regulators' decisions will take account of (a) Government energy-saving policy and (b) the environmental impacts of regulatory action. [44882]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Green Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers" sets out the Government's proposals for reform of utility regulation, including proposals to give new guidance to the regulators on social and environmental objectives relevant to their tasks, and to merge Offer and Ofgas into a single regulatory office.

  The responses to the Green Paper are presently being considered, and I will announce the Government's intentions as regards changes to the regulatory framework in due course.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans her Department has to give a defined role to the fuel regulators in achieving the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide commitments; and if she will make a statement. [44880]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government will shortly be consulting on their approach to tackling climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, including options for delivering the UK's international commitments. The consultations are likely to include possible options for promoting energy efficiency, which may include regulatory measures.

  Firearms
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking following the G8 summit regarding export control of firearms. [43726]

  Mrs. Roche
  As part of an action plan agreed in the G8 Lyons firearms sub-group and endorsed by the G8 summit, to help combat the illegal manufacture of, and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition, G8 members agreed to"establish or maintain an import/export and in-transit licensing or similar authorisation regime for the international transfer of firearms"
  respectively. The UK will continue to maintain its current licensing regime and, in its dealings with other states on export control matters, where relevant, will encourage them to establish their own regimes. The Department will also work with other relevant Government agencies to combat the threats posed by illegal manufacture and trafficking in firearms and in its dealings with manufacturers, dealers, importers and exporters seek to obtain their support and co-operation in this endeavour.

  Anpost Scheme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has commissioned into the operation of the Anpost scheme. [45647]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  None, but I understand that Post Office Counters Ltd. and the Department of Social Security undertook an examination of the Anpost system in the context of the PH "Horizon Project" contract to automate post offices and benefits payments.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in ensuring efficiency in the payment of benefits via post offices. [45648]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are committed to providing a secure, convenient and cost effective means of payment of benefits and the programme to automate all post offices is an important element of this.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to ensure the computerisation of Crown post offices. [45646]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The programme being undertaken jointly by Post Office Counters Ltd., the Benefits Agency and ICL Pathway provides for the automation of all post offices.

  Electrical Goods
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 67, what estimate has been made of the proportion of people who have the opportunity to take their old appliances back free of charge and do so. [45102]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Within the UK it is estimated that over 50% of new white goods are sold with the opportunity to take back the old appliance free of charge. For some products, estimates indicate that this opportunity may be as high as seven out of every ten appliances sold. To date no information is available on the proportion of people who decide to opt for free take-back, and we are advised that consumer habits may vary greatly for different types of products.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to introduce additional consumer protection measures in respect of imported genetically modified food. [44978]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Stringent consumer protection measures are already in place: all genetically modified foods, whether imported or produced in the UK, have to undergo a rigorous safety assessment in accordance with the requirements of the EC Regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients before they are allowed to be marketed. In addition, this and other EC regulations require all foods containing genetically modified material to be clearly labelled.

TREASURY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete the responses to all the letters received from hon. Members prior to the Budget. [41722]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: I received about a thousand Budget representations from hon. Members. All have been answered.
  105
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Financial Secretary expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Suffolk of 7 April about the Green Book. [45764]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I did so on 10 June 1998.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for Swansea, West will receive a reply to his letter of 8 April about the impact of tax regimes on inward investment. [46074]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have replied today.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks for answer on 14 May relating to Sandline (41914). [45808]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I hope to do so shortly.

  Contingent Liabilities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the projects, departments, agencies and partners of Government whose expenditure is recorded in the public accounts solely on the basis of contingent liabilities. [44722]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: Amounts outstanding for individual actual and contingent liabilities as at 31 March 1997 (the latest figures available) were published in Table B15 of the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 378 of 1996–97). This statement excludes (a) cases involving £100,000 or less; (b) cases arising in the normal course of departments' business; and (c) a small number of other cases, of which details have been supplied to the National Audit Office, where there are considerations of national security, or commercial confidentiality, or where public knowledge of a guarantee could prompt claims from third parties.

  The annual Supplementary Statement is published by the Treasury under section 21(3) of the National Loans Act 1968. The amount to be reported is the amount outstanding at the end of each financial year and details of the amounts outstanding as at 31 March 1998 will be laid before the House in mid to late December 1998. The statement is based on returns submitted by government departments; it would not be cost-effective for details to be collected more frequently.

  Contingent liabilities do not appear in the current cash-based appropriation accounts of individual departments. Government bodies which produce accruals-based accounts, such as executive agencies, trading funds and some non-departmental public bodies, follow generally accepted accounting practice, including Statement of Standard Accounting Practice (SSAP) 18 Accounting for Contingencies which requires the disclosure by way of note of material contingent losses. Following the introduction of resource accounting, government departments will also account in this way.

  Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the 106
  Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau about the charge of £500 made on companies against which complaints are made and investigated. [44921]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: The charges levied by the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau (PIAOB) are a matter for the Board of the PIAOB.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on separating capital spending plans from current spending plans for Government departments; and if he will make a statement. [45490]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement of 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 1195–215, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report published on that day set out clearly the Government's policy on public expenditure planning. Departmental spending plans—based on this treatment—will be announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review outcome which will be announced before the summer Recess.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on setting long-term plans for departmental expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [45489]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement of 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 1195–215, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report published on that day made clear the policy on long term planning of public expenditure. Departmental spending plans will be announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review outcome which will be announced before the summer Recess.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish a series of ranges for future PSBR outturns in the annual Financial Statement and Budget report reflecting different economic assumptions; and if he will make a statement.[45487]

  Mr. Darling
  The March 1998 Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR) included estimates of the effect of alternative GDP growth assumptions on the public sector net cash requirement. Published forecasts have also illustrated the effect of uncertainty by including cyclically adjusted deficits based on both a central and cautious assumption of the level of output relative to its trend.

  A prudent and cautious approach to the public finances, which allows for uncertainties, is essential if the Government are to achieve their fiscal rules and learn the lessons from the last economic cycle.

  Euro
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the London Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom staying out of the euro. [45526]
  107
  Mrs. Liddell
  The London Stock Exchange is well-prepared for the introduction of the euro next year. It has completed its analysis of responses to its consultation paper "Economic and Monetary Union: proposals for the equity markets" (published 20 February). Its ensuing proposals to ensure that UK equity markets are fully ready for EMU and able to support the euro as a trading currency from 4 January 1999 are set out in the Bank of England publication "Practical Issues arising from the introduction of the euro" published 11 June 1998. The Exchange will provide facilities to list and trade debt in euro from the same date.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to publish the six-monthly reports on preparations for joining EMU; when the first such report is due; and if he will make a statement on the outline national changeover plan. [45303]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The first six-monthly report on the state of preparations for the euro will be published in early July. It will focus in particular on the preparations in the United Kingdom for the launch of the euro in other Member States on 1 January 1999.

  The Standing Committee on preparations for EMU has agreed that the Government should compile an outline national changeover plan setting out the steps that the United Kingdom would need to take if we were to decide to join the euro. We will publish this outline plan around the end of the year. The outline plan will be compiled with the help of representatives from business and public authorities.

  Title

  Chairman

  Date

  Fundamental expenditure review of the Treasury

  Sir Colin Southgate

  6 June 1994

  The Board of Banking Supervision inquiry into the circumstances of the collapse of Barings

  Sir Alan Hardcastle

  27 February 1995

  Market testing the Treasury's micro economic forecasting function

  KPMG Management Consulting

  7 January 1997

  Review of the Private Finance Initiative

  Mr. Malcolm Bates

  8 May 1997

  Government task force on tax and benefits

  Mr. Martin Taylor

  19 May 1997

  Reform of the financial regulatory system

  Mr. Andrew Large

  20May 1997

  Welfare to work advisory taskforce

  Sir Peter Davis

  5 June 1997

  Working group on financing high technology companies

  (i) Dr. Keith McCullagh

  25 November 1997

  (ii) Dr. Peter Williams

  Government taskforce on the industrial use of energy

  Sir Colin Marshall

  17 March 1998

  Underground Economy
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate the size of the underground economy in the United Kingdom using the same criteria as the European Commission used to determine that of Italy. [44372]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All EU Member States submit Gross National Product (GNP) data to the Commission as part of the data requirements set out in Council Directive 89/130/EEC. This information is required to be complete in its coverage of economic activity as defined under the European System of Accounts (ESA 1979). A common methodology to cover the so called 'underground economy' was set down in Commission Decision C(93)3521 of 22 February 1994. Work to improve the harmonisation of these estimates continues.
  108
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the money supply level of the euro relative to the total of the combined currencies of those countries merging for the euro; what forecast he has made of trends in the overall money supply level following the introduction of the euro; if he expects international demand for the euro to be met by an increase in money supply; and if he will make a statement. [45418]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Monetary policy in the euro area is the responsibility of the European System of Central Banks. The European Central Bank will be constructing statistics for euro area monetary aggregates.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role he will have in respect of the deliberations of the committee responsible for the Euro on its total money supply level; and if he will make a statement. [45419]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Monetary policy in the euro area is the responsibility of the European System of Central Banks.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside his Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [44366]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table lists the inquiries and reviews, with the date of establishment and the name of the chairman, instigated by Treasury Ministers for each of the last four years, which have been chaired by individuals outside the Chancellor's departments:

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43315]

  Mrs. Liddell
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill

  109
  costs for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the cost of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–473.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place to require those involved with securities and investments to disclose suspicious activity to law enforcers; and if he will make a statement. [45415]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The legislation dealing with money laundering provides for suspicious transactions to be reported to a constable (usually in practice the Economic Crime Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service) and is a universal duty. It applies to those involved with securities and investments in the same way as to any other person and whether in the course of business or otherwise. Failure to make a report may result in the commission of a money laundering offence, for which the maximum penalty is fourteen years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

  In addition, those dealing with securities and investments are subject to the provisions of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993. These require that firms carrying on such business must have internal reporting procedures which ensure that, where knowledge or suspicion arises that a person is engaged in money laundering, this is disclosed to a constable. This is a positive duty for which failure to comply can lead, on conviction on indictment, to two years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the annual cost that the FSA will pass on to the financial services industry by way of(a) fees in respect of compliance and (b) other fees; [45753]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of the (a) staff, (b) premises and (c) set up costs of the Financial Services Authority. [45752]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government intend that the Financial Services Authority should continue to be responsible for its own costs, with public consultation on its budget. It is intended that the Financial Services Authority should be required to have regard to the need to be efficient and economic and ensure that costs and restrictions on firms are proportionate to the benefits of regulation.

  Holiday Insurance
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of consumer protection in respect of holiday insurance offered by UK firms, with particular reference to the extent of insurance companies' responsibility when they 110
  assess an accident to be related to an individual's consumption of alcohol; and what representations he has received on this matter. [45713]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Insurers' responsibilities in this area are governed by the Association of British Insurers' Code of Practice on the marketing and selling of general insurance and they include assessing whether policyholders' actions or omissions contributed to the claim. It does not appear that the Treasury has received representations about an accident relating to an individual's alcohol consumption.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 5 June. [45507]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I chaired the Economics and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Luxembourg on 5 June. The Economic Secretary represented the UK.

  The Council began by preparing Economics and Finance Ministers' inputs into the Cardiff European Council.

  ECOFIN agreed conclusions on the fundamental importance of Agenda 2000 to the future economic and financial development of the EU, after a wide-ranging discussion of the Commission's 18 March proposals on future financing, and reform of the Community's core spending policies (the Common Agricultural Policy and the Structural and Cohesion Funds). ECOFIN conclusions will be sent to the European Council.

  The Broad Economic Guidelines for 1998 were agreed, and conclusions on them will be discussed at the Cardiff European Council before the recommendation is adopted by ECOFIN next month.

  The Council held a discussion of the National Employment Action Plans on the basis of some issues highlighted by the Presidency. Agreement was reached on a set of principles to be included in a Presidency report to Cardiff.

  ECOFIN welcomed the Commission's paper on Pan-European Risk Capital Markets, and agreed conclusions inviting the European Council to ask the Council and Member States to consider its recommendations.

  In addition to Cardiff preparation, the Council also heard a presentation from Commissioner Monti on his proposed Directive on the taxation of savings. The proposal will now be examined in detail at official level.

  ECOFIN took note of the Conclusions of the 19 May Telecommunications Council on the report by the Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Group, and invited the commission to bring forward a Communication as soon as possible on the indirect tax treatment of electronic commerce.

  External Sales and Exports
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the latest available year
  111
  of the external sales ratio to GDP and the export ratio to GDP of (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland. [45370]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 15 June 1998:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on external sales and export ratios for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  No figures are available on the contributions to their respective GDPs of sales either between the countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; or from these individual countries to the rest of the world.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Women's Aid Refuges
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the future funding of women's aid refuges. [42763]

  Ms Ruddock
  To enable the Government to obtain an accurate picture of current provision, including funding arrangements, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Women's Unit are commissioning a package of research into the accommodation and support services provided to victims of domestic violence.

  We are already looking at funding of supported housing with other responsible Departments. This review is charged with finding sustainable, long term arrangements for support services to vulnerable people including deciding the future role of Housing Benefit. We will be looking at refuge funding as part of this work.

  Elderly People (Scotland)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the increase in spending on benefits for the elderly in Scotland up to the year 2000. [43815]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the format requested. However, it is estimated that Social Security benefit expenditure on the elderly in Scotland has increased by £111 million (3 per cent.) in real terms between 1996–97 and 1997–98 (1997–98 prices). Government spending plans for Great Britain for future years (1999–2000 to 2001–02) will be published after completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the numbers of people eligible for higher rate disability living allowance whose eligibility in respect of mobility has ceased as a result of the most recent changes. [44029]

  Mr. Denham
  There have been no recent changes in the conditions of entitlement for Disability Living Allowance. The purpose of the Benefit Integrity Project 112
  is to collect up to date information from claimants receiving the higher rate of the mobility component, with either the highest or the middle rate of the care component, to ensure they are receiving their correct entitlement.

  As of 31 March, 72,470 Disability Living Allowance (DLA) cases had been examined under the Benefit Integrity Project. This included 14,815 renewal claims following the expiry of a fixed period award. Entitlement to the higher rate of the mobility component ceased in 6,540 cases, including 3,336 renewal claims where the mobility component was not re-awarded.

  A copy of the Benefit Integrity Project statistics up to 31 March is in the Library.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when reviews take place of eligibility for disability living allowance; and what procedures are followed in order to ensure that consultations take place with the recipient's GP(a) before the test of eligibility and (b) after the test and before a decision is made. [44145]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 11 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when reviews take place of eligibility for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and what procedures are followed in order to ensure that consultations take place with the recipient's GP (a) before the test of eligibility and (b) after the test and before a decision is made.
  Each claim for DLA is considered very carefully before a decision is made about entitlement to the allowance. Claims are assessed individually and decisions are only made when it is felt that all the necessary evidence is available.
  Entitlement to DLA depends on the effects the disability has on the person's life and not on the particular disability or illness itself. It is recognised that the person best able to provide this information is the customer or their representative. It is for independent Adjudication Officers (AOs) to decide if further information is required to enable them to decide on entitlement to DLA and also from where this is obtained.
  A customer can request a review if they are dissatisfied with the decision on entitlement to benefit. A review may also be instigated when there is sufficient up to date information to show that there has been a change in a customer's circumstances which may affect eligibility for benefit, or doubt has arisen as to whether the original decision to award benefit was correct.
  As you may be aware, the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) is a programme of reviews by postal enquiry and home visit to seek up to date information about the care and mobility needs of DLA customers receiving the higher rate mobility component with either the middle or highest rate care component.
  A customer's General Practitioner will not always be consulted before a person's eligibility for benefit is reviewed. The AO will obtain further information from the most appropriate source, which may be the GP. Alternative sources of information are the customer's carer or an Examining Medical Practitioner (EMP). EMPs have a wide experience of general medicine. They are given specific training in the benefits concerned and in the completion of the detailed forms involved. EMPs gather information for the AOs on the likely care and mobility requirements arising from common disabilities.
  Guidance for AOs on the most appropriate sources of further information is provided in the Disability Handbook which is produced in consultation with the Disability Living Allowance

  113
  Advisory Board and groups representing disabled people. Guidance is also provided to staff by Medical Advisors who work for the Benefits Agency Medical Services.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what medical qualifications are required of medical examiners carrying out tests of eligibility for disability living allowance. [44141]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Benefits Agency Medical Services is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 11 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what medical qualifications are required of medical examiners carrying out tests of eligibility for Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  It may be helpful if I explain that claims for benefit are decided by independent adjudicating authorities. Neither Ministers nor officials of the Benefits Agency, including examining doctors, can intervene in or alter their decisions. For their part, the adjudicating authorities are bound by the provisions of legislation. For DLA, the adjudicating authorities are the Adjudication Officer (AO), the Disability Appeal Tribunal (DAT), and the Social Security Commissioner.
  Therefore medical examiners employed by Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS), or who provide their services on a self employed basis, do not decide eligibility for any social security benefit. Rather, they act as a specialist medical disability analyst who provides information to the AO on the customer's ability to perform particular functions associated with work or on the customer's care and mobility needs.
  All BAMS' medical examiners are required to hold a full medical degree and must be fully registered medical practitioners.
  BAMS also require their doctors to normally have at least three years post registration experience, including one year in general practice and at least six months experience of psychiatry or rehabilitation/occupational medicine. Alternatively BAMS require five years post registration experience as a principal (or equivalent) in general practice. BAMS doctors also receive specific training in relation to the type of work they carry out for the BA Medical Services.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to raise awareness of disability living allowance and of entitlement to the benefit amongst the public; and if she will make a statement. [45189]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the introduction of Disability Living Allowance the number of people receiving the benefit has almost doubled, from just over one million in 1992–93 to almost two million in 1997–98, and the expenditure has risen from £2.2 billion to £5 billion at 1997–98 prices. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the recently published provisional estimates of take-up from the disability follow-up to the Family Resources Survey, and this was discussed in the Social Security Select Committee inquiry whose report was published on 13 May 1998. Discussions have already begun with disability organisations to establish the reasons for the apparent low take-up figures, and the new Disability Benefits Forum will provide for on-going debate. A number of positive steps have been taken by the 114
  Benefits Agency to raise awareness and the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency will write to the hon. Member separately about this.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 11 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, about what plans she has to raise awareness of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and of entitlement to the benefit amongst the public.
  There are two leaflets available, which provide information on the entitlement to benefit. Leaflet DS704 provides general information on DLA and DS706 provides information on DLA for children. Both these leaflets are available from the Disability Benefits Directorate, District Offices, and Intermediary Advisors, for example Welfare Rights Organisations. There are also a core series of BA leaflets which provide more general information on disability benefits. These leaflets are currently under review in order to ensure the material is more accessible to customers, and the first set of products is due to be launched around October 1998.
  In addition to the above, the Disability Claim Pack, Charter Standard Statement and all other correspondence or forms issued to customers about DLA can be converted into braille, and the Charter Standard Statement is also available on cassette tape. Information can be provided in large print for those customers with a visual impairment. Customers with hearing or speech difficulties, who have the use of a text phone and require information on DLA can use the Text Phone service which is provided by the Disability Benefits Directorate Customer Care Helpline. Minicom facilities and LOOP systems are also available at the BA's regional Disability Benefit Centre's and the DBU. A video incorporating British Sign language and subtitles, entitled DV3 (Sickness & Disabled), is available, which provides information on DLA and other Sickness Benefits.
  The BA is continually seeking to improve the service it offers to its customers in order to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are met in full.
  You may also wish to know that the BA has an Internet site on the World Wide Web. This is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week at WWW.DSS.GOV.UK
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 9 June 1998,Official Report, columns 545–46, concerning the BIP, what timescale the review is working to and when she will report its outcome. [45769]

  Mr. Denham
  The purpose of the Benefit Integrity Project is to collect up to date information from claimants receiving the higher rate of the mobility component, with either the highest or the middle rate of the care component, to ensure they are receiving their correct entitlement.

  We have made substantial progress on a number of initiatives. My noble Friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham will be meeting the Disability Benefits consortium on 29 June to discuss progress to date and consider outstanding issues.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many post offices, and in which locations, are using the magnetic strips benefits payments card service; and how many post offices he estimates will be using this service by 31 March 1999. [45562]
  115
  Mr. Field
  Presently 204 post offices in the North-East and South-West of England are automated and paying Child Benefit by Payment Card as part of a limited trial. On current plans the trial will be extended by approximately 100 post offices in early 1999.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Benefits Agency is taking with regard to the computerisation of benefit payments. [45692]

  Mr. Field
  The Benefits Agency, Post Office Counters Ltd. and ICL Pathway are undertaking the automation of post offices and benefit payments. Order books and Girocheques will be phased out and replaced by a magnetic stripe plastic card to provide a modern, secure and convenient method of paying benefits. This will involve the automation of over 19,000 post offices and the conversion of approximately 20 million Social Security benefit recipients who choose to collect payment at the post office. The project is being implemented under the terms of a PFI contract let to ICL Pathway under the previous administration in 1996.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions have taken place with Girobank with regard to the improvement of efficiency of payments of benefits. [45693]

  Mr. Field
  This Department is routinely in discussion with Girobank plc on matters relating to the contracts held for the provision of girocheques. These discussions cover only the efficiency of processes, and improvements to the security of the girocheque.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research her Department has evaluated into the operation of the Anpost scheme. [45694]

  Mr. Field
  This Department and Post Office Counters Ltd. undertook a feasibility study before inviting tenders for the Private Finance Initiative contract, subsequently let in 1996, to automate post offices and benefit payments. This included an examination of the Anpost system in the Republic of Ireland both before and during the qualitative evaluation of the tenders.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 224, concerning the New Deal for Lone Parents, if she will update her answer to cover the periods (a) 1 March to 31 March and (b) 1 April to 30 April. [45192]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information on the operation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is available up to and including 24 April 1998:

  As at 31 March:
  21,334 initial letters have been issued (in addition to this 3,461 lone parents have initiated contact with the personal adviser).
  6,085 initial interviews have been arranged, and 5,178 lone parents have attended interviews.
  4,637 lone parents have agreed to participate in the programme following mutual interviews.
  1,530 lone parents have found jobs following agreement to participate in the programme.

  As at 24 April:
  22,402 initial letters have been issued (this does not include those who have initiated contact with the personal adviser).
  7,102 initial interviews have been arranged, and 5,832 lone parents have attended interviews.
  5,235 lone parents have agreed to participate in the programme following initial interviews.
  1,678 lone parents have found jobs following agreement to participate in the programme.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to make a decision about changes to the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme. [45763]

  Mr. Denham
  An announcement was made on 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 358, that the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme will be considered as part of the overall review of welfare which includes disability benefits, in consultation with the Department of Health. Also, at the same time it was announced that the intention is to increase the current payment of £30,000 to £40,000, as soon as Parliamentary approval can be obtained.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Schools: Truancy and Exclusion
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the measures to reduce truancy and exclusion from school (Cm. 3957, May 1998) will depend upon changing the content of what is taught.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government acknowledge that many factors contribute to pupil disaffection. As part of our general review of the national curriculum, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will be focusing on a number of themes to ensure that it better meets the needs of disaffected pupils. We have announced our intention to take early action to promote work-related learning for 14 to 16 year-olds to re-engage disaffected young people. The authority has consulted on criteria which would enable schools to adopt innovative approaches to increasing the focus on work-related learning. The Government are currently considering the authority's advice on the outcome of the consultation.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and for her references to the way in which the new curriculum will be making allowances for, as she puts it, disaffected pupils. Given that teachers cannot teach to more than one curriculum at a time, and given that this document, in a dozen places, makes reference to making special appeal to disaffected pupils, could we be given some assurance that the sweeteners designed to woo the disaffected pupils will not result in a reduction in rigour in classes for pupils, the majority of whom, I believe, really want to learn?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept what I think lies behind the noble Lord's Question. One accepts the case for some flexibility in relation to the national curriculum, but it is extremely important that we do not undermine standards for the majority, particularly in key areas such as literacy and numeracy. It is important that rigour is at the centre of all that we are doing in relation to pupils, whether in primary or secondary schools. The move towards some work-related learning relates to Key Stage 4—to 14 to 16 year-olds in our secondary schools.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Answer, but is she aware that many schools which are already adopting the innovative approaches described—for instance, through GNVQ foundation work at Key Stage 4—feel that they are penalised in that they have a lower place in the rather competitive school league
1282
tables? Does she agree that other schools are reluctant to adopt such an innovative approach for exactly the same reason; namely, they fear that they will lose their standing in school league tables? How do the Government propose to address that problem?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept that the place of GNVQs, whether at foundation, intermediate or advanced level, is incredibly important in the secondary school curriculum. It is a qualifications route that is much more appropriate for many young people than the academic route. It is therefore important that those schools that are successful in keeping young people at school, and in keeping them motivated and involved in the curriculum, should in no way be penalised. The Government are examining ways in which league tables can take into account success in GNVQs at various levels.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that music is a particularly effective subject, not merely as a complementary subject in the teaching of young people, but especially for those children who have difficulty in learning and for those who may be disaffected? It is a very good subject indeed. The educational spin-offs are enormous. It has been disapplied in the national curriculum. Therefore it is a matter of chance as to whether schools teach music; there is no requirement for them to do so. Is that not a retrograde step in relation to the attempt to raise standards in our schools?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, I do not believe it is a retrograde step. The reason for disapplying some parts of the primary school curriculum was to ensure that primary school teachers could reach the very ambitious targets that we have set for literacy and numeracy. The Government's view is that children at any age will not succeed unless they reach those targets. I refer to learning to read and write and to all the requirements of basic numeracy. The Government have asked the QCA to issue guidance on how to ensure that there is a broad and balanced curriculum in our primary schools. Music will play a central part in that.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that much of this problem is created as a result of not diagnosing dyslexia in children in the early days? Does she accept that, if they are diagnosed, many of the problems will go away?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, disaffection, truancy and failure to be motivated by the national curriculum are complex areas. There are many possible causes of children being turned off by the schooling they receive. I entirely accept that, as my noble friend said, where dyslexia is a factor it is important to try to diagnose it as early as possible and then take remedial action to support children who suffer from it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that part of the clue to the problem lies in the teacher training colleges and institutes, which ought to teach the tricks of the trade of teaching—namely, the way in which one can make even irregular verbs and valencies fun to learn by using various tricks?
Further, does the noble Baroness agree that the place in to which we ought to put our major effort is nursery education for children between the ages of three and five? Physiologists tell us that the human brain learns more in the early stages of life than in the whole of the rest of life. The human brain is particularly receptive to learning at that time. Very interesting studies of that kind, with which I shall not bore the noble Baroness, have been made in America proving the point. Could the Minister encourage the growth of nursery education, ensuring that children receive the opportunity to learn? If they do not learn then, the difficulty is that they may never learn.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. For the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Annan, stated so eloquently, the Government are committed to providing a nursery place for all four year-old children. They intend in the longer term to provide a nursery place for three year-olds as well. The noble Lord is right that this is the stage at which children learn fastest.
On the noble Lord's second question, it is vitally important that teacher education is such that it allows students to receive good teaching practice where they learn the "tricks of the trade", as he put it.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
2.44 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the managing trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund to include a trustee from among the pensioners of the fund.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the current regulations governing the managing trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, preclude the appointment of a pensioner by stipulating that no person shall be appointed a trustee unless a sitting Member in another place. The chairman of the managing trustees has just written to the Leader of the House of Commons pressing for the regulations to be amended to enable pensioner members to be appointed trustees. The proposal is now under consideration and I will ensure that the House is kept informed of progress.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, is he aware that pensions legislation introduced since the Maxwell pension scandal has advocated that a third of trustees should be elected by the membership of the scheme? Is he
1284
also aware that a huge majority, over 50 per cent. of the membership of the parliamentary scheme, which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for about 18 years, comprises pensioners? Does the Minister agree with me that, in terms of equity and plain common sense, there should be at least one representative on the trustee panel of the parliamentary pension scheme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that the Pensions Act 1995 provided that one third of trustees should be from the members of the fund. But since 1972 the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund has had all its managing trustees as Members of the House of Commons. Therefore, it anticipated and went beyond the provisions of the 1995 Act. My noble friend is also right that the pensions review body under Professor Roy Goode recommended that there should be pensioner members of the trustees. That recommendation from Mr. John MacGregor, the present chairman of the trustees, is being considered by the Leader of the House of Commons.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall for so kindly referring to my service to the fund over the years. While it is not for the Government alone to decide the question, does the Minister agree that the problems of many of the fund's pensioner members multiply in their retirement years and that some representation for them among the trustees would be in the best interests of the fund as a whole, not least of present MPs who are its pensioners of the future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's long service to the fund has been well commented on by my noble friend Lord Randall. My noble friend Lord Morris is right that current thinking is that pensioners should be represented and the recommendation of Professor Goode is being considered by the President of the Council. I cannot say what the Government's attitude will be, but I should say to my noble friend that any change in the constitution of the pension fund must be ratified through the negative resolution procedure of both Houses.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I must declare an interest as chairman of a company pension fund group of trustees and also as a member of the parliamentary scheme. I endorse what has been said about the splendid work done over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The implications of the Question seem to be that trustees who are pensioners would somehow represent pensioners' interests. Does the Minister agree that it is important that all trustees should, when appointed, represent all interests involved? Having said that, I express the hope that the base on which the parliamentary scheme exists would benefit from being widened in the way suggested.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord says. As one who set up and ran a pension fund for 30 years outside politics, I agree that there should be pensioner

1285
representatives but that all the trustees should represent all the interests of all the pensioners rather than any specific interest.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, how does one become a managing trustee? Is the trustee appointed? If so, who appoints him? How is it all done?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in this case the managing trustees are appointed by the House of Commons as a whole. If the pension fund were to apply to this House, I presume that the position would be hereditary.

North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire Councils
2.50 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make funds available to North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire councils to avoid a deterioration in services as a result of their past financial management.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, the Government will not tolerate failure and inefficiency in council services, including direct labour organisations. My right honourable friend has already taken action in East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire. The Government expect the councils concerned to ensure that local taxpayers and service users do not suffer unnecessarily in consequence.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I must declare an interest as a council tax payer in East Ayrshire. The North Lanarkshire shortfall of £4.8 million on its direct labour organisation and East Ayrshire's shortfall of £3 million for the second year running must mean that services for the council tax payers of those councils must be hard hit. Can the Minister assure me that the guilty councillors and/or officials responsible for the shortfall will pay for it rather than the council tax payers?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, at the moment it is clear that we are dealing with a case of incompetence rather than a case of corruption. An uncontrolled and unplanned deficit may well fall, at least in part, on the council tax payers. In the present circumstances, any local authority has a duty to cut non-essential expenditure immediately and to the bone. Perhaps those two authorities could take account of that and look at travel and entertainment expenditure. I should make it clear that there is no question of additional government grant.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the Minister speaks of action. What action does he propose to take?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State served formal notice on the two councils last week. They are required to provide certain information and have three weeks to do so. The Secretary of State can then direct them and use his power to require re-tendering or even the winding-up of the DLO.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the action taken by our right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland stands in sharp contrast with the lack of action from the Conservative Government in relation to Westminster council? Comments on matters in North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire would have more credibility if the Conservative Party had got round to dealing with the sleaze in Westminster council.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those accurate comments. In all seriousness, what happened in North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire was unacceptable. In those circumstances, the real question is what we do as a government. We acted, and acted decisively.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister on succeeding in gaining a place on his party's list as a candidate for the Scottish parliament. Is he aware that it must be a singular achievement for a Member of this place to pass what some people describe as the "Politburo" set up to vet candidates? Does the Minister have some regrets about the number of Labour local councillors who are sharing his position in the list, given the disrepute into which so many Labour councillors have brought Scottish local government? While the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, can name one council, what does the Minister have to say about Monklands—changed into North Lanarkshire to make it sound better—Paisley or Renfrew, where one MP committed suicide, another had to obtain police protection and a third has been suspended by his party for ages? The police had to go into that council 20 times and a senior policeman said, "If it had been a public house, we would have closed it down." We have the problems too of East Ayrshire and East Dunbartonshire. Words from the Government are fine. But action is necessary to protect local council tax payers and services to the public.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, my right honourable friend acted clearly, firmly and decisively. As a former leader of my own council, a former president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and as a former member of the Accounts Commission in Scotland, I take seriously any improper action in local government, no matter which party or individuals are involved. I am also aware, as indeed is that other product of local government, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, of the great work so many councillors do for their communities. That should be recognised.

Sierra Leone: Arms Sales
2.57 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given the Government private notice, namely:
What evidence was given by Sir John Kerr to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place concerning the briefing given to Ministers on the arms to Sierra Leone affair prior to the Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on 10th March?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter.
Perhaps I can begin by reminding the House of the single most important fact; that is, that once again there is in place in Sierra Leone a democractically elected government. The illegal rule of an undemocratic military regime has been ended. We on this side of the House welcome that. I hope that the whole House does too.
But, with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who I believe has tried to focus on the real issues, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and his team prefer to concentrate more on pieces of paper in London than on policy and real events, like today's summit in Cardiff.
On the issues which have been raised, let me make clear once again that the Government do not and did not support any breach of a United Nations embargo. Ministers had no prior knowledge or approval of arms sales to Sierra Leone.
Let us be clear about what the Government have done. The Government referred the issue to HM Customs and Excise for investigation. Customs investigated and concluded that there are no grounds for further action. With that investigation completed, the Government immediately established an inquiry, chaired by Sir Thomas Legg, into the handling of the matter within Whitehall. That inquiry is carrying out its work. Sir Thomas Legg is considering all the evidence. He will report on the whole issue. His report will be published. It will be the best means for the full facts to be established.
It would be wrong for me to enter into detailed discussions on the questions being examined by Sir Thomas Legg. I have no intention of pre-empting his findings. But, following press allegations, I believe it is appropriate for me to address the issue of my replies in this House on 10th March to a Starred Question from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and on 11th May as to when I first became aware of Sandline's involvement in Sierra Leone.
On 11th May, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me when I first learnt of Sandline's involvement. I replied that I was first aware of allegations regarding
1288
Sandline's role in Sierra Leone when I saw the report in the Observer of 8th March. That is entirely correct. I saw the report in a newspaper on that Sunday morning. The headline was,
"Britain holds talks with hired killers",
the allegation being that the High Commission had been involved in secret talks with Sandline. Officials briefed me on that in preparation for the 10th March Question. So I did not mislead the House.
On 10th March I was asked about this article. The article did not refer to arms shipments or the breaking of UN sanctions. I said that the article was not entirely accurate or at least not on all fours with reports to Her Majesty's Government. That was entirely right. My answer was based on a speaking note prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which said that the High Commissioner had confirmed that allegations made in the article were wrong. I therefore did not mislead the House on that occasion either. I am sure that Sir Thomas Legg will want to look very carefully at this issue. All my briefing material has been made available to him.
The briefing for 10th March covered all aspects of the situation in Sierra Leone in preparation for the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asking what steps Her Majesty's Government were taking to help restore lasting peace in Sierra Leone. As the Foreign Affairs Committee was told on 14th May, there was information contained in the background documentation about the allegation of arms supplies being referred to the appropriate authorities. But the clear focus was on what was happening in Sierra Leone; and rightly so.
I did not on 10th March announce a Customs investigation. I was not briefed to do so; and quite right. It would have been highly prejudicial and quite wrong to make the referral public at that stage. To do so would have alerted those who were potentially under investigation and would have been unfair to them if the allegations were subsequently found to be groundless. The notion that I or others in the FCO deliberately concealed these things to protect ourselves is particularly absurd given that it was the FCO itself that passed the accusations to Customs and Excise, which led to their investigation.
Moreover, the overwhelming issue at the time was the fighting in Sierra Leone and the welcome return of President Kabbah to Freetown on the very day I was speaking. Officials were helping to direct efforts to relieve a serious humanitarian situation on the ground. They were co-ordinating the return of our High Commissioner. They were closely involved as presidency of the EU and in action in the UN Security Council in framing the wider international response to the unfolding situation in Sierra Leone. My briefing correctly focused on these major developments, particularly as I was not involved in the policy-making chain on these issues.
Of course I did not deliberately mislead this House. I have made it clear now and in what I said on 10th March and 11th May that I did not do so inadvertently either. I reiterate what I said to the House on 11th May. If any of my remarks, today or at any other time, are found to be inaccurate, I will correct them. I trust that Members on the other side, in this House or in another place, will be ready to correct their ill-founded allegations.

1289
Let me return to the point that I made at the beginning. The minutiae that I have been forced to dwell on today have no bearing on the actual events in Sierra Leone, before or since. The situation in Sierra Leone remains serious, with atrocities by the rebels continuing. People would do better to focus on that or on some of the other grave foreign policy questions we are faced with rather than on this kind of specious nonsense.
3.3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Baroness for the comprehensive explanation that she has given and for the fact that she has gone much wider than the terms of the Question. Perhaps I may say how much we agree with her that it is not the minutiae we are concerned with but the wider issues of what will happen in Sierra Leone following the restoration of the democratic government and the other serious issues that arise out of the Customs and Excise investigation which have not yet been dealt with.
What are the special circumstances in which Customs and Excise decided not to bring proceedings against Sandline and Mr. Spicer, notwithstanding the fact that a clear breach of Security Council Resolution 1132 had been committed? Since the noble Baroness has widened the Answer, perhaps she can deal with that question now. Does she agree with me that even if the right result has been achieved in the end—that is to say, the restoration of democratic government under President Kabbah—if it has been achieved by unlawful means, in particular by a breach of a Security Council resolution, which is a serious matter as the Foreign Secretary has said, that provides an extraordinarily harmful example for dealing with future cases of this kind?
Does she further agree that a serious question arises about how we treat the so-called military consultants who were involved in this case? Is she aware that the South Africans have legislated to regulate the activities of companies such as these? Would we not do well to follow that example and even to bring forward an amendment to the United Nations Convention on Mercenaries so that the regulation would be of a universal character instead of being confined to one country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the announcement made by HM Customs and Excise on 18th May that the Customs decision, confirmed by the Attorney-General, not to mount a prosecution was taken after considering all the circumstances leading up to the supply.
The noble Lord raised the unlawful means. There is no doubt that this matter has been considered very seriously. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd and I have all said how seriously we take these issues. I reiterated that point again today in answering the noble Lord's Question, so I do not think there can be any doubt whatever about that.
1290
The noble Lord raised the question of military consultants and mentioned the interesting example of South Africa. I will ensure that I draw to the attention of my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd the very pertinent point that the noble Lord has made.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on 14th May I asked the noble Baroness whether, only three days before Customs officers raided Sandline on Friday 3rd April, Tony Lloyd, the relevant Foreign Office Minister, was in fact in Sierra Leone. In her own words, she said that she was unsighted on this issue but that she would write to me. A month has passed and I have received no letter. Is the noble Baroness now in a position to say whether she knew of the Minister's visit to Sierra Leone? Further to her statement on 11th May that she would not have expected to see details of the Customs and Excise investigation into Sandline, is she aware that other Ministers did indeed receive papers on this subject? Finally, was the briefing that she received for the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the House on 10th March either seen by or sent for the approval of any other Minister, given Sir John Kerr's evidence that a side copy of the brief was marked for Mr. Lloyd?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very concerned that the noble Lord has not received a letter. On my return to the FCO today I shall ensure that a letter is sent to him as soon as possible.
The noble Lord raised other questions about the details of my briefing. In particular he asked whether my briefing had been sent to Mr.Lloyd. The noble Lord will know that Mr. Lloyd has said quite clearly that he did not receive any such briefing. He made a statement on this matter on 12th March. The exact statement was that he was not then briefed, told, advised or in any other way informed, either orally or in writing, either of alleged arms shipments or the Customs and Excise investigation. Clearly, this is a matter for Sir Thomas Legg. I think we must exercise some patience and look forward to what Sir Thomas Legg will have to say on these important issues.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what is happening in Sierra Leone at the moment?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can do my best. I made some reference to this in the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We understand that the forces of the RUF are regrouping. Sadly, reports of atrocities committed by them continue. Her Majesty's Government have taken a very strong lead in the international community. Since February we have been pursuing a consistent policy with close ministerial involvement. That involves securing a UN mandate for ECOMOG on the basis of a UN-approved disarmament and mobilisation plan; obtaining voluntary international funding to provide logistic support of ECOMOG needs; and providing humanitarian relief and plans for longer-term development and government with the Government of Sierra Leone. I hope that gives some flavour as to what is happening at the moment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in view of some the things that have been said on this subject since March, is

1291
the noble Baroness aware that on that occasion many of us—and I include myself—had the impression of a Minister who, under very difficult circumstances, was treating the House honestly, fairly and with considerable candour? I for one never had the impression that she was in any way misleading anybody and the Minister has confirmed that today. My next point goes rather wider than her concerns. Is she aware that some of the remarks addressed to Sir John Kerr in another place are very hard to go along with and, as far as I was concerned, were a source of considerable discomfort?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am truly grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and I thank him very much. Sir John Kerr gave the same information on 9th June as he did on 14th May. In my briefing for 10th March there were references to allegations of illegal arms shipments being referred to the appropriate authority. I was, rightly, not briefed to reveal that referral for the very obvious reasons that I have given.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be agreed to (HL Paper 109).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
The Committee has met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
1. MILLENNIUM EXHIBITION
The Committee considered proposals for an exhibition on parliamentary democracy to be held in Westminster Hall in 2000 to celebrate the new millennium. The exhibition will be organised jointly with the House of Commons. The Committee agreed expenditure provision to be made in respect of the House of Lords contribution.
2. FILMING AND BROADCASTING IN THE HOUSE
The Committee took note of an agreement reached with BBC News and Current Affairs to allow filming until the end of November of a documentary about the House. In addition, Wall to Wall Television Ltd will be allowed access to the House to research a prospective documentary of the House.
3. HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT TRUST
The Committee were informed that the History of Parliament Trust has decided that, from 1999–2000, the House of Lords should form part of the programme of work of the Trust. The Committee agreed that the House of Lords should in future contribute to the funding of the Trust.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I would like to thank the committee members for the work they do on our behalf. I wish to ask a question about paragraph 1 of the report dealing with the millennium exhibition. It states that there is to be an exhibition in Westminster Hall, organised jointly with the Commons. It says also,
"The Committee agreed expenditure provision to be made in respect of the House of Lords contribution".
1292
Can the Chairman of Committees say how much expenditure is involved? How much is capital expenditure and how much constitutes running costs? I cannot believe that in these times of financial prudence the House is being asked to give a blank cheque. So I look forward to details from the Chairman of Committees, because, if we do not get them now, in future, if there is dissent about this expenditure, I fear that we shall be given the formula that it has been considered by the relevant committees, approved by the House and a line will then be drawn underneath it. More details should be given when we have such reports. Otherwise the House is being treated unfairly and its authority sought without the fullest information being made available for people to make up their minds.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, says. One wonders where this proposal originated, how much it is going to cost and how much your Lordships' House is going to pay as opposed to the other place. Cannot the Chairman of Committees envisage the possibility that unkind people may suggest that it would be preferable if an exhibition on democracy in Westminster Hall were replaced by a constant display of democracy elsewhere, and particularly in another place down the road?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall deal with all of the matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Peyton. Perhaps I should not venture into speculation about the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, tempted though I am to do so.
As regards costs, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee, in making these recommendations to your Lordships, felt it right to agree in principle to a capital cost provided that the two Houses of Parliament went ahead together. I hope that your Lordships will feel that that is right. There can be no question of one House of Parliament going ahead with this idea. The Offices Committee, on the advice of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, suggests that this House should contribute £50,000 towards the costs. If another place decides to join in supporting the project, it should authorise an equivalent sum.
The sum of £5,000, shared jointly between the two parties, has been spent so far in commissioning an adviser. She is an expert in interpreting historic buildings to the general public. I am advised that she has considerable experience in the matter. She was commissioned to help the working group of officials from the two Houses establish the basis of what became the proposal for an exhibition on parliamentary democracy.
I refer now to a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. At the moment, much as I would like to do so, I am unable to give your Lordships any information about running costs. I am advised that they would add quite considerably to the capital cost of £100,000 shared between the two Houses. Those costs are in the process of being assessed. It will probably not be until towards the end of the year—certainly later in the year—that I shall be able to advise your Lordships of the precise amount.

1293
In answer to another of the perfectly fair and valid points raised, there is no question at all of your Lordships' committees committing this House to any proposals. They will have to be scrutinised by the committees in the first place and then come before your Lordships for authorisation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the immense relief that he has given, at any rate to me, in saying that the lady concerned is a well-known interpreter of old buildings. I am so glad to know that she is not going to devote her undoubtedly immense talent to interpreting some of the so-called practitioners of democracy who claim to be alive.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton—and myself to a lesser extent—can speak from personal experience of those considerations from our time in another place.
Although I cannot give the figures, for the reasons I have explained, perhaps I may help a little further on the question of costs. If the project goes ahead, running costs will have to be met by the two Houses. I am advised that additional security would form a substantial element but lesser amounts would also be needed for practical facilities such as lavatories for members of the public attending the exhibition, if it goes ahead.
It may be appropriate to mention one other consideration regarding costs. It has been suggested that an admission charge should be considered. Again, that would need to come before your Lordships for consideration. The admission charge, if it were to be introduced, would help quite significantly to meet the overall costs of the exhibition.
I am sorry not to be able to give further details at the moment, but there is the assurance, which I hope will bring some comfort in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Cocks, as well as to other noble Lords, that these matters will need to be further considered by your Lordships' House before they can go ahead. I understand that the House of Commons Commission, which will consider these matters, is meeting this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Regulations (Energy Rating Information) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Nicol.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government of Wales Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 244:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
("Health Advisory Council for Wales
HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR WALES
.—(1) The Assembly shall establish and maintain a body to be known as the Health Advisory Council for Wales or Cyngor Iechyd Ymgynghorol Cymru (but referred to in this Act as the Health Council).
(2) The Health Council shall consist of Assembly members and members of—

(a) a health authority for an area in, or consisting of, Wales;

(b) a National Health Service Trust all or some of whose hospitals, establishments or other facilities, are situated in Wales;

(c) local representative committees in Wales of primary care professionals.

(3) The Health Council may—

(a) give advice to the Assembly about matters affecting the exercise of any of the Assembly's functions in relation to the strategic direction of the National Health Service in Wales;

(b) make representations to the Assembly about any matters affecting, or of concern to, those employed by or involved in the National Health Service in Wales; and

(c) give advice to those employed by or involved in the National Health Service in Wales.

(4) The health subject committee of the Assembly shall consult the Health Council as to any order which it contemplates making affecting health and health services.
(5) The Assembly shall appoint as members of the Health Council—

(a) the Assembly members who are members of the health subject committee; and

(b) as many members of—

(i) a health authority for an area in, or consisting of, Wales,

(ii) a National Health Service Trust all or some of whose hospitals, establishments or other facilities are situated in Wales, and

(iii) local representative committees of primary care professionals,

as the Assembly considers appropriate.
(6) The Assembly shall appoint one of the members of the Health Council to be its chairman.
(7) The Health Council shall meet at least twice a year.
(8) The Health Council shall lay before the Assembly an annual report on the performance of its functions.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to establish a health advisory council of the assembly with a membership covering both the special subject committee and the National Health Service in Wales. The purpose of such a council would be to advise the assembly about strategic matters relating to the NHS in Wales, and to advise the NHS in Wales itself.
I am a long-standing admirer of the National Health Service in Wales. Over the 50 years of its operation it has produced a consistently high standard of service both in extreme rural areas and in the large conurbations. It has very high public and staff commitments and a very high standard of teaching and research. I believe that we have seen considerable innovations. I refer in particular to public health issues and to the development of an all-Wales mental health strategy.
I believe that the assembly will enhance the ability of the NHS to improve its services. The assembly starts with wide-ranging responsibilities: the allocation of resources to NHS organisations; holding those bodies to account; ensuring that the health of the people living in Wales improves and that there is a strategy for continuing to improve their health; and ensuring that the health service in Wales has an adequate and well-trained staff.
I am convinced that the assembly offers much opportunity to the NHS in Wales by, for example, allowing it to introduce more innovation without being in the shadow of the Department of Health in England, by ensuring a better appointments process to the non-executive positions on health authorities and trusts, and by allowing for cross-sectoral working. I believe that the various subject committees of the assembly, bringing together those with an interest in health, the environment, transport and housing, present a great opportunity to establish cohesive public health policies which will help to improve the health of many people. Finally, I welcome the ability to tailor resources to specific priorities in a way which I suspect has not been possible previously.
The success of that process depends crucially on the relationships between the relevant assembly secretary, the relevant subject committee and the NHS in Wales. The National Assembly Advisory Group offered much helpful advice on, for example, the checks and balances that need to be in place, the role of the assembly secretary and the role of the subject committee, which will have the job of holding the assembly secretary to account, putting its views on the budget of the NHS in Wales to the executive committee, making recommendations on policy and scrutinising secondary legislation.
All of that represents extremely useful advice, but I suspect that there is always the danger that the subject committee may be tempted to involve itself too greatly in operational management at field level and deal rather less with strategic leadership, proper monitoring and holding the NHS to account. That problem is not exclusive to the work of the new assembly. Indeed, the NHS has been bedevilled over the years by too much
1296
operational interference in management at local level by the four departments of health throughout the United Kingdom. We have seen the continual second-guessing of decisions, the slowing down of decision-making and, in many cases, the inhibition of effective management at local level. Perhaps we took Aneurin Bevan's words too literally when he said that when a bedpan drops in a ward in St. Thomas's Hospital, its echo should resound in the Palace of Westminster. I suspect that over the past 50 years rather too many bedpans have been dropped and rather a lot of echoes have been heard in this House and in another place.
That is where an advisory council would come into play. It could help to clarify sensibly the relationship between the assembly and the NHS in Wales. It could ensure that the subject committee has access to advice from people in the field. It could encourage the assembly subject committee to focus on strategic leadership and direction. It would, I am sure, create confidence in the NHS about the activities of the assembly. It could ensure that policy and secondary legislation would be tested by the people who have to operate it at field level. I am sure that it could ensure that the performance management of the NHS would be that much more effective.
The Bill already allows for a partnership council between the assembly and local authorities. It allows for a scheme to promote the interests of voluntary organisations. It allows for consultation with business on the impact of the assembly. It would be a great pity if the Bill did not contain a specific reference to the National Health Service in that regard. After all, the NHS is the largest single employer in Wales, with 68,000 people working directly for it. Another 8,500 GPs and dentists are contracted to the NHS. Its budget in the last financial year was £2.4 billion, some 34 per cent. of the entire Welsh Office budget.
So the performance of the NHS in Wales is crucial to the performance of the assembly. Getting right the relationship between the assembly and the NHS is essential. I am sure that an advisory council would help enormously. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Members of the Committee will recall that we touched on the health service in Wales when we discussed Clause 28 which gives the assembly powers over health authorities in Wales. I drew attention then to the changes that the Government are already promoting in the NHS in anticipation of the advent of the assembly. The health authorities—already reduced to five—may be reduced still further. The trusts are to be reduced—their number is almost to be halved—from 29 to about 15.
I am not criticising those changes in themselves although many people in Wales do criticise them; but I am critical of the timing. For example, it is unfair that the new configuration of the trusts is due to be in place on 1st April next year, exactly one month before the assembly elections. Much of the future structure of the NHS in Wales will be fixed before the assembly takes over responsibility. In short, the views and consideration

1297
of the assembly are being pre-empted to a large extent. Perhaps that is a reason why the Government do not propose a co-operative scheme with the NHS as with the local authorities and voluntary organisations.
The Welsh Office has been the regional tier of the NHS in Wales. I believe that there were 18 regional tiers in England. Therefore, the relationship between the Welsh Office and the NHS traditionally has been very close. It is many years since I had personal ministerial responsibility for the NHS in Wales, but I do not believe that the close, almost intimate, nature of that responsibility has changed a great deal over the years. It is a unique ministerial role. It was one I enjoyed immensely and look back upon with great satisfaction. During that time we built a string of major new hospitals across the north and south of Wales and introduced new developments such as the 10-year strategy for improving the life of the mentally handicapped who are now referred to as people with learning difficulties. That strategy has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
I trust that whoever becomes assembly secretary responsible for health will find the job as rewarding as I did. He or she will certainly find the officers and staff of the NHS in Wales wonderful people to work with and for. One possible inspiration for the new clause and the health advisory council that is proposed is the partnership council between the assembly and local authorities to be set up under Clause 113. There are a number of similarities between the proposed health council and partnership council and the assembly and local government. There are also subtle differences. For example, assembly membership of the partnership council is not confined to the committee that deals with local government while membership of the health council is specific on that point. There are 22 unitary authorities in Wales. They are generally in favour of the Government's proposals for devolution, unlike the county councils in 1979 who were against because they viewed a national assembly as a threat to their power and possibly their resources.
The Government are surely right to believe that there must be close understanding and co-operation between the assembly and local authorities; certainly, they cannot be at loggerheads. But at the end of the day the assembly rules. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I question why the Government have sought this partnership with the local authorities and a scheme with the voluntary bodies but nothing specific to do with the NHS. I suspect that the real reason why there is no such proposal is the close connection between Ministers at the Welsh Office and the NHS, the Welsh Office being the regional tier, and the belief of the Welsh Office that the closeness of the relationship will be transferred from the Secretary of State to the assembly.
I believe that the real inspiration for the health council lies deeper; that is, in the personal professional experience of noble Lords themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has been intimately connected with the health service in Wales. Clearly, noble Lords want a national forum for the NHS in Wales with a strong advisory and consultative role. It is interesting that noble Lords do not follow the Government's line in asking the
1298
assembly to make a scheme with health authorities and local government and with voluntary organisations as in Clause 114. Noble Lords are to be admired; they do not mess about but come straight to their health council. A very substantial, powerful body is proposed; it comprises members of the assembly's health committee. But one wonders whether it is a mistake to include them in an advisory body when they may very well carry executive responsibility. How could they advise themselves? The mix could prove embarrassing.
If the Government are inclined to accept the new clause, I believe that they should take it away and re-model it between now and Report stage if only to remove the ambiguity whereby members of the assembly's health committee who may very well occupy an executive position are also members of what is basically an advisory body. I look forward to the comments of the noble Lord the Minister in due course.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall always be grateful to two Secretaries of State, one a Labour Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, and the other a Conservative Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, who many years ago gave me the opportunity to serve the NHS in Wales for about half a dozen years. I have never lost interest in the NHS.
The statistics cited by my noble friend demonstrate that the assembly's responsibilities for the NHS in Wales will be most important. It may be that the amendment is imperfect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that perhaps there is need to reflect on the precise wording of the amendment. However, I believe that the principle of the amendment recognises the importance of the health service in Wales. I hope that the Committee and the Government will see merit in the assembly having a statutory advisory health council.
The case for the amendment has been made by my noble friend Lord Hunt and there is very little that I can add. However, I should like to emphasise two or three points. First, the advisory council would enable the assembly to draw on the advice of those involved in the NHS in Wales. That advice would be based on their knowledge and experience. If the Government were willing to consider the drafting of the amendment I would feel comfortable with the extension of the membership to those men and women who had an interest and expertise in the health service. I could mention some names to the Committee but I shall not embarrass them.
Secondly, my noble friend may say that it is open to the assembly to establish a sub-committee to advise it on the NHS in Wales, and that I accept. However, there is a distinction. A statutory advisory body would give statutory recognition to the contribution of the NHS staff who work extraordinarily hard on modest salaries. If it were statutory, it would enhance the status of the committee and the NHS in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, drew attention to the provisions in the Bill for a local government partnership council and the scheme for the voluntary bodies in Wales. Those are fair points to

1299
make. But we can distinguish our case from that of the partnership council, local government and the voluntary scheme. The partnership council will be a partnership between two tiers of democratic government. We shall discuss the voluntary bodies in Wales later. However, in the legal sense a distinction can be drawn between the NHS and the voluntary bodies. The NHS will be an agent of the assembly. That leads to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, but I believe that it could be resolved.
Finally, I believe that the NHS undoubtedly owes a part of its inspiration to the medical aid societies and the miners' hospital committees of the South Wales coalfields in the first half of this century. The best way in Wales this year to respect and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS is by embodying a statutory health advisory body composed of representatives of NHS staff in the highest council of government in Wales in the new century.
I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I acknowledge at once that all three speeches in relation to the amendment were extremely informed and constructive. I recognise the reasoning underlying the proposal to have a health advisory council (Cyngor Iechyd Ymgynghorol Cymru). I readily pay tribute to all three noble Lords who spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is right. There have been extremely close, well developed arrangements in place for effective consultation between the Welsh Office and the National Health Service. I endorse the tributes he paid to the personnel involved over the many years, of which he knows much more than I.
It is right to say that the policies have been developed on the basis of close co-operative dialogue and jointly. We have the Health Policy Board chaired by the Secretary of State with members from the chairmen of health authorities in Wales. There is regular contact between Ministers, as again the noble Lord indicated, with the chairmen and chairwomen of the National Health Service organisations; and there are constant formal and informal contacts on a regular basis, not least through the Trust Executive Advisory Group.
There is no reason to suppose that those relations will not continue between the assembly and the NHS. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the assembly from either preserving inherited mechanisms or—if it wishes to as its own powers develop and experience demonstrates to it—arranging alternative processes for consultation with the NHS as well as the handling of subsequent business. It is entirely open to the assembly as the work beds down to establish a help advisory council for Wales, as now proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt.
We think it better to leave it to the assembly to see how things will develop. It will inherit various statutory advisory committees covering the health professions, and it will have to have, as the noble Lord,
1300
Lord Roberts, again indicated, constant contact with NHS bodies and contractor professions. We are presently producing a corporate plan for the NHS in Wales. It is headed by a senior NHS officer. It is supported by a Welsh Office/National Health Service team. It will provide a clear strategic framework in the plan for supervision and direction of the long-term operation and development of the service in Wales.
We do not think, therefore, that specific provision on the face of the Bill is presently required. There would be some difficulties in areas such as subordinate legislation because one would have to convene the council to pass such measures as orders; and that would slow down matters in a way which would not be necessary. I very much respected the views put forward by my noble friend Lord Hunt during Second Reading. He said, and I agree with him, that there are risks sometimes in an over-prescriptive approach. We think that the best course is to allow the present arrangements to continue and for the assembly to judge on experience as matters eventually transpire. Local government is different because it is directly accountable via the ballot box.
I relate specifically to a few remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I can assure the noble Lord that we are not seeking to constrain the assembly's freedom. Quite the opposite. We want the organic relationship between the assembly and the NHS in all its manifestations to develop on an incremental basis on the basis of experience. I stress this again. The noble Lord is right. The assembly will be able to modify and change what it inherits.
It seems to me that the four of us who addressed the Committee share the same purpose. We have equal regard to what the NHS has done and to the needs for improvement and change in the future. I come to the conclusion that we should not be over-prescriptive but should leave it to the assembly, since this is a devolution of powers, to see how it best wishes to maintain or alter arrangements in the future.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Lord Prys-Davies, for bringing this important matter before the Committee. However, we believe that the functions of the assembly should not be fettered. As the noble Lord pointed out when introducing the matter, the National Health Service will be an important part of the work of the assembly consisting, as it does, of such an important percentage of the budget, and involving so many functions that the assembly will have to consider.
We are sure that the present arrangements are satisfactory for the moment. If the assembly finds them unsatisfactory, no doubt it will take the appropriate steps to ensure that the continuing good relationships between Government and the health service continue, and that there is proper communication between all parts of the National Health Service to ensure that the people of Wales are properly served.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am most grateful to noble Lords and my noble friends for their contribution to the debate. I have great confidence in the NHS in Wales, the people who work there, and the civil servants

1301
responsible for administering the NHS from the Welsh Office. I acknowledge the good relationships between the NHS and the Welsh Office. I accept that through the principle of devolution it is for the assembly to decide many of these matters. The legislation before us allows for a partnership council with local government, and for arrangements in respect of voluntary organisations and with business. A statutory advisory council would have been a strong visible sign to all in the NHS in Wales. It would have assured a proper relationship between the NHS and the assembly.
Nevertheless, I have listened with great care to what my noble friend has said. No doubt we may discuss this later on. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 245 and 246:
Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
WELSH ADMINISTRATION OMBUDSMAN
PART I

  THE OMBUDSMAN
  Appointment
  1.—(1) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall be appointed by Her Majesty.
  (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall hold office until the end of the year of service in which he attains the age of 65.
  (3) Her Majesty may relieve the Welsh Administration Ombudsman of office before the end of that year of service—

  (a) at his request, or

  (b) on Her Majesty being satisfied that he is incapable for medical reasons of performing the duties of his office and of requesting to be relieved of it.

  (4) Her Majesty may remove the Welsh Administration Ombudsman from office before the end of the year of service in which he attains the age of 65 if, on the ground of misbehaviour, the Secretary of State recommends that Her Majesty should do so; but the Secretary of State shall not so recommend without consulting the Assembly.
  Status
  2.—(1) The person for the time being holding the office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall by the name of that office be a corporation sole.
  (2) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall be regarded as holding office under Her Majesty and as exercising his functions on behalf of the Crown.
  (3) Service as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall not be service in Her Majesty's Home Civil Service but he shall be taken to be a Crown servant for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
  Acting Welsh Administration Ombudsman
  3.—(1) Where the office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman becomes vacant, Her Majesty may, at any time during the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the vacancy arose, appoint a person to act as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.
  (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (5), an acting Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (3) An acting Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall not hold office after—

  (a) the appointment of a new Welsh Administration Ombudsman, or

  (b) the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the vacancy arose,

  whichever occurs first.
  (4) Her Majesty may at any time relieve an acting Welsh Administration Ombudsman of office—

  (a) at his request, or

  (b) on Her Majesty being satisfied that he is incapable for medical reasons of performing the duties of his office and of requesting to be relieved of it.

  (5) Her Majesty may remove an acting Welsh Administration Ombudsman from office at any time if, on the ground of misbehaviour, the Secretary of State recommends that Her Majesty should do so; but the Secretary of State shall not so recommend without consulting the Assembly.
  (6) A person appointed under this paragraph shall, while he holds office, be regarded for all purposes (except those of paragraph 1 and this paragraph) as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.
  Remuneration
  4.—(1) The Assembly shall—

  (a) pay the Welsh Administration Ombudsman such salary and any such allowances, and

  (b) make any such payments towards the provision of superannuation benefits for or in respect of him,

  as may be provided for by or under the terms of his appointment.
  (2) But where a person is both Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Welsh Administration Ombudsman he shall not be entitled to any salary as Welsh Administration Ombudsman.
  (3) The Assembly shall pay to or in respect of a person who has ceased to hold office as Welsh Administration Ombudsman such amounts (if any) by way of—

  (a) pension or gratuities, or

  (b) provision for those benefits,

  as may have been provided for by or under the terms of his appointment.
  (4) In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (offices etc. to which section 1 of that Act applies), in the list of "Offices" insert—
  "Welsh Administration Ombudsman."
  (5) The Assembly shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (4) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
  Staff and advisers
  5.—(1) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman may appoint such staff as he considers necessary for assisting him in the exercise of his functions.
  (2) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall include among his staff such persons having a command of the Welsh language as he considers are needed to enable him to investigate complaints in Welsh.
  (3) Service as a member of the staff of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall be service in Her Majesty's Home Civil Service.
  (4) The Assembly shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (3) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
  (5) Any function of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may be exercised by—

  (a) a member of his staff,

  (b) a member of the staff of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, or

  (c) an officer of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or of either of the other Health Service Commissioners,

  if authorised by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman for that purpose; and references in any enactment to a member of the staff of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman include any person exercising any function of his by virtue of paragraph (b) or (c).
  (6) To assist him in the exercise of his functions the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may obtain advice from any person who, in his opinion, is qualified to give it.
  (7) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman may pay to any person from whom he obtains advice under sub-paragraph (6) any such fees or allowances as he may determine.
  (8) No arrangements shall be made—

  (a) for any of the functions of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or of the Assembly to be exercised by the other or by a member of the other's staff, or

  (b) for the provision of any administrative, professional or technical services by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or the Assembly for the other.

  Reports
  6.—(1) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman—

  (a) shall annually prepare and lay before the Assembly a general report on the performance of his functions, and

  (b) may from time to time prepare and lay before the Assembly such other reports with respect to his functions as he thinks fit.

  (2) The Assembly shall, and the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may, publish reports laid before the Assembly under this paragraph.
  Expenses
  7.—(1) The expenses of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall, so far as they cannot be met out of income received by him, be met by the Assembly.
  (2) Those expenses include any sums payable by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman in consequence of a breach, in the course of the performance of any of his functions, of any contractual or other duty (whether that breach occurs by reason of his act or omission or that of a member of his staff or any other person assisting him in the exercise of his functions).
  Estimates
  8.—(1) For each financial year of the Assembly after the first, the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall prepare, and submit to the executive committee, an estimate of the income and expenses of his office.
  (2) Each such estimate shall be submitted to the executive committee at least five months before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates.
  (3) The executive committee shall examine each such estimate submitted to it and, after having done so, shall lay the estimate before the Assembly with any such modifications as the committee thinks fit.
  (4) Where the executive committee proposes to lay such an estimate before the Assembly with modifications, the committee shall first consult the Secretary of State and have regard to any advice which he may give.
  Accounts
  9.—(1) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall keep proper accounting records.
  (2) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall, for each financial year of the Assembly, prepare accounts in accordance with directions given to him by the Treasury.
  (3) The directions which the Treasury may give under sub-paragraph (2) include, in particular, directions as to—

  (a) the information to be contained in the accounts and the manner in which it is to be presented,

  (b) the methods and principles in accordance with which the accounts are to be prepared, and

  (c) the additional information (if any) that is to accompany the accounts.

  Audit
  10.—(1) The accounts prepared by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman for any financial year of the Assembly shall be submitted by him to the Auditor General for Wales no later than five months after the end of that financial year.
  (2) The Auditor General for Wales shall—

  (a) examine and certify any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, and

  (b) no later than four months after the accounts are submitted to him, lay before the Assembly a copy of them as certified by him together with his report on them.

  (3) In examining any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall, in particular, satisfy himself that the expenditure to which the accounts relate has been incurred lawfully and in accordance with the authority which governs it.
  Accounting officer
  11.—(1) The accounting officer for the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall be the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.
  (2) But where—

  (a) the Welsh Administration Ombudsman is incapable of discharging his responsibilities as accounting officer, or

  (b) the office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman is vacant (and there is no acting Welsh Administration Ombudsman),

  the Treasury may designate a member of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman's staff to be the accounting officer for so long as paragraph (a) or (b) applies.
  (3) The accounting officer for the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall have, in relation to the accounts of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and the finances of the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, the responsibilities which are from time to time specified by the Treasury.
  (4) In this paragraph references to responsibilities include in particular—

  (a) responsibilities in relation to the signing of accounts,

  (b) responsibilities for the propriety and regularity of the finances of the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, and

  (c) responsibilities for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the resources of the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman are used.

  (5) The responsibilities which may be specified under this paragraph include responsibilities owed to—

  (a) the Assembly, the executive committee or the Audit Committee, or

  (b) the House of Commons or its Committee of Public Accounts.

  (6) If requested to do so by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, the Audit Committee may—

  (a) on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts take evidence from the accounting officer for the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, and

  (b) report to the Committee of Public Accounts and transmit to that Committee any evidence so taken.

  (7) In this paragraph and paragraphs 12 and 13 "the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman" means the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and the members of his staff.
  Examinations into use of resources
  12.—(1) The Auditor General for Wales may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Welsh Administration Ombudsman has used the resources of the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman in discharging his functions.
  (2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not be construed as entitling the Auditor General for Wales to question the merits of the policy objectives of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.
  (3) In determining how to exercise his functions under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall take into account the views of the Audit Committee as to the examinations which he should carry out under this paragraph.
  (4) The Auditor General for Wales may lay before the Assembly a report of the results of any examination carried out by him under this paragraph.
  (5) The Auditor General for Wales and the Comptroller and Auditor General may co-operate with, and give assistance to, each other in connection with the carrying out of examinations in respect of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman under this paragraph or section 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).
  Examinations by the Comptroller and Auditor General
  13.—(1) For the purpose of enabling him to carry out examinations into, and report to Parliament on, the finances of the Office of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General—

  (a) shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents in the custody or under the control of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, or of the Auditor General for Wales, as he may reasonably require for that purpose, and

  (b) shall be entitled to require from any person holding or accountable for any of those documents any assistance, information or explanation which he reasonably thinks necessary for that purpose.

  (2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

  (a) consult the Auditor General for Wales, and,

  (b) take into account any relevant work done or being done by the Auditor General for Wales,

  before he acts in reliance on sub-paragraph (1) or carries out an examination in respect of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman under section 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).

PART II

  INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
  Bodies subject to investigation
  14.—(1) The bodies subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman are—

  (a) the Assembly,

  (b) the Arts Council of Wales,

  (c) the Countryside Council for Wales,

  (d) the Environment Agency,

  (e) the Forestry Commission,

  (f) the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales,

  (g) the Sports Council for Wales,

  (h) the Wales Tourist Board,

  (i) the Welsh Development Agency, and

  (j) the Welsh Language Board.

  (2) In the case of the Environment Agency an investigation may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman only in respect of action in connection with any of its functions in relation to—

  (a) Wales, or

  (b) an area of the sea adjoining either the coast of Wales or an area of the sea forming part of Wales,

  other than its flood defence functions (within the meaning of the Water Resources Act 1991).
  (3) In the case of the Forestry Commission an investigation may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman only in respect of action in connection with functions of the Forestry Commissioners in relation to Wales.
  (4) Subject to paragraph 15, the Assembly may by order amend sub-paragraph (1) by—

  (a) adding any body,

  (b) omitting any body other than the Assembly, or

  (c) altering the description of any body.

  (5) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 15 references to a body include a government department and an unincorporated body (as well as a body corporate); and references in this Schedule to a body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall be construed accordingly.
  (6) References in the following provisions of this Schedule to action taken in the exercise of functions of a body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman include action taken in the exercise of any functions of—

  (a) any of its members or (in the case of a government department) any of its Ministers, or

  (b) any of its officers or members of its staff.

  15.—(1) An order under sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 may only add a body to sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph if—

  (a) the body has functions exercisable in relation to Wales or a part of Wales (whether or not they are also exercisable otherwise than in relation to Wales),

  (b) some or all of those functions are in a field in which the Assembly has functions, and

  (c) the body either exercises its functions on behalf of the Crown or falls within sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.

  (2) A body falls within this sub-paragraph if—

  (a) it is established under an enactment or by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative or is established in any other way by a Minister of the Crown or government department or by the Assembly,

  (b) at least half of its expenditure on the exercise of functions in relation to Wales (or, where its functions relate only to a part of Wales, in relation to the part of Wales to which they relate) is met directly from payments made by the Assembly, and

  (c) it is wholly or partly constituted by appointment made by Her Majesty, a Minister of the Crown or government department or the Assembly.

  (3) An order under sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 adding a body to sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph may provide that an investigation may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman only in respect of action of a specified description taken by or on behalf of the body.
  (4) If an order under sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 adds to sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph a body which exercises functions otherwise than in relation to Wales (as well as in relation to Wales or a part of Wales), the order shall provide that an investigation may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman only in respect of action in connection with its functions in relation to Wales or a part of Wales.
  (5) If an order under sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 adds to sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph a body which has functions in a field in which the Assembly does not have functions (as well as in a field in which it does), the order shall provide that an investigation

  1307
  may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman only in respect of action in connection with its functions in a field in which the Assembly has functions.
  (6) An order under sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 shall not add a body to sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph if the result of adding it would be that the Welsh Administration Ombudsman could investigate action which can be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
  (7) An order under sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 shall not add to sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph a body whose sole activity is, or whose main activities are, included among any one or more of the following—

  (a) the provision of education,

  (b) the development of curricula, the conduct of examinations or the validation of educational courses,

  (c) the provision of training otherwise than under the Industrial Training Act 1982,

  (d) the control of entry to any profession or the regulation of the conduct of members of any profession, and

  (e) the investigation of complaints by members of the public regarding the actions of any person or body or the supervision or review of, or of steps taken following, such an investigation,

  or a body operating in an exclusively or predominantly commercial manner or carrying on under national ownership an industry or undertaking or part of an industry or undertaking.
  (8) If and to the extent that a function is exercisable in relation to—

  (a) the Welsh language or any other aspect of Welsh culture, or

  (b) an area of the sea adjoining either the coast of Wales or an area of the sea forming part of Wales,

  it shall be regarded for the purposes of this paragraph as exercisable in relation to Wales.
  Matters which may be investigated
  16.—(1) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman may investigate any action taken by or on behalf of a body subject to investigation by him if—

  (a) the action was taken in the exercise of administrative functions of that body, and

  (b) a written complaint is duly made to him by a person who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with the action ("the person aggrieved").

  (2) For the purposes of this Schedule administrative functions exercisable by any person appointed as a member of the administrative staff of a relevant tribunal—

  (a) by a body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, or

  (b) with the consent (whether as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service or otherwise) of such a body,

  shall be taken to be administrative functions of the body.
  (3) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall not conduct an investigation in respect of any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had—

  (a) a right of appeal, reference or review to or before a tribunal constituted under any enactment or by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative, or

  (b) a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law,

  unless the Welsh Administration Ombudsman is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to resort or have resorted to it.
  (4) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall not conduct an investigation in respect of any action if the person aggrieved has or had the opportunity to make a complaint under a procedure operated
  1308
  by the body in the exercise of whose functions the action was taken unless he is satisfied—

  (a) that the procedure has been invoked and exhausted, or

  (b) that, in the particular circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect the procedure to be or have been invoked or exhausted.

  (5) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall not conduct an investigation in respect of—

  (a) action taken by or with the authority of a body for the purposes of investigating crime,

  (b) the commencement or conduct of any civil or criminal proceedings before any court of law in the United Kingdom,

  (c) action which could be investigated under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993,

  (d) action taken by any member of the administrative staff of a relevant tribunal so far as taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of any person acting in his capacity as a member of the tribunal,

  (e) action taken in matters relating to contractual or other commercial transactions, other than compulsory land transactions, or

  (f) action taken in respect of appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other personnel matters in relation to relevant service.

  (6) In sub-paragraph (5)—
  "compulsory land transactions" means transactions for or relating to—

  (a) the acquisition of land compulsorily or in circumstances in which it could be acquired compulsorily, or

  (b) the disposal as surplus of land acquired compulsorily or in such circumstances, and

  "relevant service" means service—

  (a) in any office or employment under the Crown or under any body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, or

  (b) in any office or employment, or under any contract for services, in respect of which power to take action, or to determine or approve the action to be taken, in personnel matters is vested in Her Majesty or any such body (or, in the case of a government department, any of its Ministers).

  (7) The Assembly may by order amend sub-paragraph (5) or (6) so as to exclude any actions or matters from the provisions of sub-paragraph (5).
  (8) In determining whether to initiate, continue or discontinue an investigation, the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall (subject to the preceding provisions of this paragraph) act in accordance with his own discretion; but the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may not question the merits of a decision taken without maladministration in the exercise of a discretion.
  (9) In this paragraph "relevant tribunal" means a tribunal specified by order made by the Secretary of State; and references to a tribunal include the person constituting a tribunal consisting of one person.
  (10) References in this Schedule to "action" include failure to act (and related expressions shall be construed accordingly).
  Complaints
  17.—(1) A complaint may be made to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman by any individual or body of persons (whether or not incorporated) except—

  (a) the Assembly,

  (b) a local authority or other authority or body constituted for purposes of the public service or of local government,

  (c) a body constituted for the purposes of carrying on under national ownership an industry or undertaking or part of an industry or undertaking, and

  (d) any other authority or body whose members are appointed by Her Majesty, any Minister of the Crown or government department or the Assembly or whose revenues consist

  1309
  wholly or mainly of money provided by Parliament or the Assembly.

  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), a complaint shall not be entertained by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman unless made by the person aggrieved himself.
  (3) Where the person by whom a complaint might have been made to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman has died, or is for any reason unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made by—

  (a) his personal representatives,

  (b) a member of his family, or

  (c) another individual, or any body, suitable to represent him.

  (4) A complaint to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall not be entertained unless it is made to him not later than twelve months after the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matters alleged in the complaint; but the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint not made within that period if he considers that there are special circumstances which make it proper to do so.
  (5) A body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may itself refer to him a complaint made to the body about action taken by or on behalf of the body in the exercise of administrative functions of the body if the complaint was made—

  (a) in writing,

  (b) by a person who could have made a complaint to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman about the action, and

  (c) not more than twelve months after the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matters alleged in the complaint or such later day as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman considers appropriate in any particular case.

  (6) But a body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may not refer a complaint under sub-paragraph (5) more than twelve months after the day on which the body received the complaint.
  (7) Any question whether a complaint is duly made or referred to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall be determined by him; but a complaint duly referred to him shall be deemed to be duly made to him.
  Investigation procedure
  18.—(1) Where the Welsh Administration Ombudsman proposes to conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint made to him, he shall afford to—

  (a) the body concerned, and

  (b) any person who is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of,

  an opportunity to comment on any allegations contained in the complaint.
  (2) The investigation shall be conducted in private but in other respects the procedure for conducting the investigation shall be such as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case; and, in particular, the Welsh Administration Ombudsman—

  (a) may obtain information from such persons and in such manner, and make such inquiries, as he thinks fit, and

  (b) may determine whether any person may be represented, by counsel or solicitor or otherwise, in the investigation.

  (3) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman may, if he thinks fit, pay to the person by whom the complaint was made and to any other person who attends or supplies information for the purposes of an investigation—

  (a) sums in respect of expenses properly incurred by them, and

  (b) allowances by way of compensation for the loss of their time,

  in accordance with such scales, and subject to such conditions, as may be determined by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.
  (4) The conduct of an investigation shall not affect—

  (a) any action taken, or

  (b) any power or duty to take further action with respect to any matters subject to the investigation.

  Evidence
  19.—(1) For the purposes of an investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman he may require—

  (a) any member of, or any officer or member of the staff of, the body concerned, or

  (b) any other person who in his opinion is able to supply information or produce documents relevant to the investigation,

  to supply such information or produce such documents.
  (2) For the purposes of any such investigation the Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall have the same powers as the High Court in respect of—

  (a) the attendance and examination of witnesses (including the administration of oaths and affirmations and the examination of witnesses abroad), and

  (b) the production of documents.

  (3) No obligation to maintain secrecy or other restriction on the disclosure of information obtained by or supplied to persons in Her Majesty's service, whether imposed by any enactment or by any rule of law, shall apply to the disclosure of information for the purposes of an investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.
  (4) The Crown shall not be entitled in relation to any investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman to any such privilege in respect of the production of documents or the giving of evidence as is allowed by law in legal proceedings.
  (5) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), no person shall be compelled for the purposes of an investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman to give any evidence or produce any document which he could not be compelled to give or produce in civil proceedings before the High Court.
  Obstruction and contempt
  20.—(1) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman may certify an offence to the High Court where—

  (a) a person, without lawful excuse, obstructs him or any member of his staff in the performance of his functions, or

  (b) a person is guilty of any act or omission in relation to an investigation which, if that investigation were proceedings in the High Court, would constitute contempt of court.

  (2) Where an offence is so certified the High Court may inquire into the matter; and after hearing—

  (a) any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person charged with the offence, and

  (b) any statement that may be offered in defence,

  the High Court may deal with the person charged with the offence in any manner in which it could deal with him if he had committed the same offence in relation to the High Court.
  (3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as applying to the taking of any such action as is mentioned in paragraph 18(4).
  Reports
  21.—(1) Where the Welsh Administration Ombudsman has conducted an investigation pursuant to a complaint made to him, he shall prepare a report of the results of the investigation and shall send copies of it to—

  (a) the person who made the complaint,

  (b) any Assembly member who, to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman's knowledge, assisted that person in making the complaint (or, if he is no longer an Assembly member, such Assembly member as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman thinks appropriate),

  (c) the body concerned,

  (d) any person who is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of, and

  (e) the Assembly First Secretary.

  (2) Where the Welsh Administration Ombudsman decides not to conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint made to him, he shall prepare a statement of his reasons for not conducting an investigation and shall send copies of it to—

  (a) the person who made the complaint, and

  (b) any Assembly member who, to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman's knowledge, assisted that person in making the complaint (or, if he is no longer an Assembly member, such Assembly member as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman thinks appropriate).

  Action in response to reports
  22.—(1) Where the Assembly First Secretary receives a copy of a report under paragraph 21(1) of the results of an investigation of any action taken in the exercise of a function, he shall send a copy of it to any Assembly Secretary who is accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with section 57) for the exercise of the Assembly's functions in any fields in which the function falls.
  (2) Where in a report under paragraph 21(1) the Welsh Administration Ombudsman states that injustice to the person aggrieved has been caused in consequence of maladministration, the body concerned shall consider the report and within—

  (a) the period of three months beginning with the date on which the body received the report, or

  (b) such longer period as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may agree in writing,

  shall notify the Welsh Administration Ombudsman of the action taken or proposed to be taken.
  (3) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall prepare a further report if he—

  (a) does not receive the notification required by sub-paragraph (2) within the period allowed by or under that sub-paragraph,

  (b) is not satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken, or

  (c) does not within the period of three months beginning with the end of the period allowed by or under sub-paragraph (2), or such longer period as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman may agree in writing, receive confirmation from the body that action has been taken, as proposed, to his satisfaction.

  (4) The further report shall set out those facts and make such recommendations as the Welsh Administration Ombudsman thinks fit to make with respect to action which, in his opinion, should be taken—

  (a) to remedy the injustice to the person aggrieved, and

  (b) to prevent similar injustice being caused in the future;

  and a copy of the further report shall be sent to each of the persons to whom a copy of the report under paragraph 21(1) was sent.
  (5) Where the Assembly First Secretary receives a copy of a further report arising from an investigation of any action taken in the exercise of a function, he shall send a copy of it to any Assembly Secretary who is accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with section 57) for the exercise of the Assembly's functions in any fields in which the function falls.
  (6) Where the Assembly First Secretary receives a copy of a further report arising from an investigation of any action taken in the exercise of functions of the Assembly, he shall also—

  (a) lay a copy of it before the Assembly, and

  (b) (unless action to the satisfaction of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman has been taken or proposed) give to the Assembly notice of his intention to move that the Assembly resolve to approve the recommendations specified in it.

  (7) The standing orders must make provision for any motion of which notice has been given pursuant to sub-paragraph (6)(b) to be moved as soon as is reasonably practicable (unless action to the satisfaction of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman has been taken or proposed).
  Reports: supplementary
  23.—(1) Apart from identifying any body investigated, a report under paragraph 21(1), a further report under paragraph 22(3) or a report under paragraph 6 shall not—

  (a) mention the name of any person, or

  (b) include any particulars which, in the opinion of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, are likely to identify any person and can be omitted without impairing the effectiveness of the report or further report,

  unless, after taking account of the public interest (as well as the interests of any person who made a complaint and other persons), the Welsh Administration Ombudsman considers it necessary for the report or further report to mention his name or include such particulars.
  (2) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the following are absolutely privileged—

  (a) the publication of any matter by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman in a report or statement under paragraph 21, a further report under paragraph 22(3) or a report under paragraph 6,

  (b) the publication of any matter in communications between—

  (i) an Assembly member or member of the Assembly's staff, a member of any other body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman (or, in the case of a government department, any of its Ministers) or an officer or member of the staff of any such body, and

  (ii) the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or a member of his staff,

  in connection with an investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman,

  (c) the publication of any matter in communications between any person and an Assembly member in connection with a complaint by the person to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, and

  (d) the publication of any matter in communications between any person and the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or a member of his staff in connection with a complaint by the person to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman.

  Confidentiality of information
  24.—(1) Information obtained by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or a member of his staff in the course of or for the purposes of an investigation shall not be disclosed except—

  (a) for the purposes of the investigation and of any report of it,

  (b) for the purposes of any proceedings for—

  (i) an offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989 alleged to have been committed in respect of information obtained by him or a member of his staff, or

  (ii) an offence of perjury alleged to have been committed in the course of an investigation by him,

  (c) for the purposes of an inquiry with a view to the taking of proceedings within paragraph (b),

  (d) for the purposes of any proceedings under paragraph 20, or

  (e) in accordance with paragraph 25.

  (2) Neither the Welsh Administration Ombudsman nor any members of his staff shall be called upon to give evidence in any proceedings (other than proceedings referred to in sub-paragraph (1)) of matters coming to his or their knowledge in the course of an investigation.
  (3) A Minister of the Crown may give notice in writing to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman with respect to—

  (a) any document or information specified in the notice, or

  (b) any class of document or information so specified,

  that in the opinion of the Minister the disclosure of that document or information, or of documents or information of that class, would be prejudicial to the safety of the State or otherwise contrary to the public interest.
  (4) Where such a notice is given neither the Welsh Administration Ombudsman nor any member of his staff shall be required or authorised to disclose to any person or for any purpose any document or information specified in the notice or any document or information of a class so specified.
  25.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where—

  (a) the Welsh Administration Ombudsman also holds office as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or a Health Service Commissioner ("a Commissioner"), and

  (b) a person initiates a complaint to him in his capacity as a Commissioner which relates partly to a matter with respect to which that person has previously initiated, or subsequently initiates, a complaint to him as Welsh Administration Ombudsman.

  (2) Information obtained by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or a member of his staff in the course of or for the purposes of investigating the complaint made to him in his capacity as Welsh Administration Ombudsman may be disclosed for the purposes of his carrying out his functions in relation to the other complaint.
  Consultation and co-operation with other Ombudsmen
  26.—(1) Where the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation, forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter which could be the subject of an investigation—

  (a) by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967,

  (b) by a Health Service Commissioner under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, or

  (c) by a Local Commissioner under Part III of the Local Government Act 1974,

  he shall consult about the complaint with the appropriate Commissioner and, if he considers it necessary, he shall inform the person who made the complaint of the steps necessary to make a complaint to that Commissioner.
  (2) Where the Welsh Administration Ombudsman consults with a Commissioner in accordance with sub-paragraph (1), the consultations may extend to any matter relating to the complaint, including—

  (a) the conduct of any investigation pursuant to the complaint, and

  (b) the form, content and publication of any report of such an investigation.

  (3) Where a body subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman is also—

  (a) an authority to which the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 applies,

  (b) a body subject to investigation by a Health Service Commissioner under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, or

  (c) an authority to which Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 applies,

  the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Health Service Commissioner concerned or the Local Commissioner concerned shall co-operate with each other to any such extent as appears appropriate when exercising any function in relation to the body.
  (4) Nothing in paragraph 24(1) applies in relation to the disclosure of information in the course of consultations or other co-operation under this paragraph.").
  Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
AMENDMENTS OF HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONERS ACT 1993
1. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 has effect subject to the following amendments.
2. In section 1(3) (which introduces Schedule 1), for "the Commissioners and other administrative matters" substitute ", and other administrative matters relating to, the Health Service
1314
Commissioner for England and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland; and Schedule 1A has effect with respect to the appointment and remuneration of, and other administrative matters relating to, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales".
3.—(1) Section 2 (bodies subject to investigation by Health Service Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (bodies subject to investigation by Health Service Commissioner for Wales), after paragraph (c) insert "and
(ca) the National Assembly for Wales ("the Assembly")."
(3) In subsection (5)(b) (Special Health Authorities which are subject to investigation by Health Service Commissioner), omit "by Order in Council".
(4) For subsection (6) (procedure for Order in Council) substitute—
"(6) A designation for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) shall be made—

(a) in the case of a Special Health Authority exercising functions only or mainly in Wales, by order made by the Assembly by statutory instrument, and

(b) in any other case, by Order in Council;

and a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council made by virtue of paragraph (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
4. In section 2B (independent providers subject to investigation), after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Arrangements with the Assembly are not arrangements with a health service body for the purposes of this Act unless they are made in the exercise of a function of the Assembly relating to the National Health Service."
5. In section 3 (remit of Commissioners), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1YA) In the case of the Assembly the Health Service Commissioner for Wales may only conduct an investigation in respect of—

(a) a failure in a service provided by the Assembly in the exercise of a function of the Assembly relating to the National Health Service (an "Assembly health service function"),

(b) a failure of the Assembly to provide a service the provision of which is an Assembly health service function, or

(c) maladministration connected with any other action taken by or on behalf of the Assembly in the exercise of an Assembly health service function."

6. In section 7(1) (exception of action taken in respect of personnel matters), at the end insert "or service as a member of the staff of the Assembly."
7. In section 8(2) (authorities not entitled to make a complaint)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "government" insert "(including the Assembly)", and

(b) in paragraph (c), after "department" insert "or by the Assembly" and after "Parliament" insert "or the Assembly".

8. In section 10 (referral of complaints by health service bodies), after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) The Assembly may only refer a complaint under this section if it is in respect of a matter which the Health Service Commissioner for Wales can investigate by virtue of section 3(1YA)."
9. In section 11(4) (payment of expenses etc. by Commissioner)—

(a) after "Payments" insert "made by the Health Service Commissioner for England or the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland", and

(b) at the end insert "; and payments made by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales under this subsection shall be in accordance with such scales and subject to such conditions as may be determined by him."

10.—(1) Section 14 (reports by Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) For "a Commissioner" (in each place) substitute "the Health Service Commissioner for England or the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland".
(3) In subsection (4) (annual reports)—

(a) for "Each of the Commissioners" substitute "The Health Service Commissioner for England and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland", and

(b) after "shall" and "may" insert "each".

(4) In the sidenote, after "by" insert "English and Scottish".
11. After that section insert—
"Reports by Welsh Commissioner.
14A.—(1) In any case where the Health Service Commissioner for Wales has conducted an investigation pursuant to a complaint under section 3(1), (1A) or (1C) he shall prepare a report of the results of the investigation and send copies of it—

(a) to the person who made the complaint,

(b) to any Assembly member who to the Commissioner's knowledge assisted in the making of the complaint (or, if he is no longer an Assembly member, to such Assembly member as the Commissioner thinks appropriate), and

(c) to the Assembly First Secretary.

(2) He shall also send a copy of the report—

(a) in the case of a complaint under section 3(1)—

(i) to the health service body who at the time of the report provides the service, or has the function, in relation to which the complaint was made, and

(ii) to any person who is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of,

(b) in the case of a complaint under section 3(1A)—

(i) to any person by reference to whose action the complaint is made,

(ii) to the family health service provider (if he does not fall within sub-paragraph (i)). And

(iii) to any health service body with whom the family health service provider is subject to an undertaking to provide family health services, and

(c) in the case of a complaint under section 3(1C)—

(i) to any person who is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of,

(ii) to the independent provider, and

(iii) to the health service body or family health service provider with whom the independent provider made the arrangement to provide the service concerned.

(3) In any case where the Health Service Commissioner for Wales decides not to conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint under section 3(1), (1A) or (1C) he shall prepare a statement of his reasons for not conducting an investigation and shall send copies of it—

(a) to the person who made the complaint, and

(b) to any Assembly member who to the Commissioner's knowledge assisted in the making of the complaint (or, if he is no longer an Assembly member, to such Assembly member as the Commissioner thinks appropriate).

Action in response to reports by Welsh Commissioner.
14B.—(1) Where the Assembly First Secretary receives a copy of a report under section 14A(1), he shall send a copy of it to any Assembly Secretary who is accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with section 57 of the Government of Wales Act 1998) for the exercise of any functions of the Assembly relating to the National Health Service.
(2) Where in a report under section 14A(1) the Health Service Commissioner for Wales states that the person aggrieved has sustained such injustice or hardship as is mentioned in section 3(1), (1A) or (1C), any body or provider subject to the investigation shall consider the report and within—

(a) the period of three months beginning with the date on which the body or provider received the report, or

(b) such longer period as the Commissioner may agree in writing,

shall notify the Commissioner of the action taken or proposed to be taken.
(3) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall prepare a further report if he—

(a) does not receive the notification required by subsection (2) within the period allowed by or under that subsection,

(b) is not satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken, or

(c) does not within the period of three months beginning with the end of the period allowed by or under subsection (2), or such longer period as the Commissioner may agree in writing, receive confirmation from the body or provider that action has been taken, as proposed, to his satisfaction.

(4) The further report shall set out those facts and make such recommendations as the Health Service Commissioner for Wales thinks fit to make with respect to action which, in his opinion, should be taken—

(a) to remedy the injustice or hardship to the person aggrieved, and

(b) to prevent similar injustice or hardship being caused in the future;

and a copy of the further report shall be sent to each of the persons to whom a copy of the report under section 14A(1) was sent.
(5) Where the Assembly First Secretary receives a copy of a further report, he shall send a copy of it to any Assembly Secretary who is accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with section 57 of the Government of Wales Act 1998) for the exercise of any functions of the Assembly relating to the National Health Service.
(6) Where the Assembly First Secretary receives a copy of a further report arising from an investigation relating to the Assembly, he shall also—

(a) lay a copy of it before the Assembly, and

(b) (unless action to the satisfaction of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales has been taken or proposed) give to the Assembly notice of his intention to move that the Assembly resolve to approve the recommendations specified in it.

(7) The standing orders of the Assembly must make provision for any motion of which notice has been given pursuant to subsection (6)(b) to be moved as soon as is reasonably practicable (unless action to the satisfaction of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales has been taken or proposed).
Reports: supplementary.
14C.—(1) Apart from identifying any body or provider investigated, a report under section 14A(1), a further report under section 14B(3) or a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1A shall not—

(a) mention the name of any person, or

(b) include any particulars which, in the opinion of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, are likely to identify any person and can be omitted without impairing the effectiveness of the report or further report,

unless, after taking account of the public interest (as well as the interests of any person who made a complaint and other persons), the Commissioner considers it necessary for the report or further report to mention his name or include such particulars.
(2) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the following are absolutely privileged—

(a) the publication of any matter by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales in a report or statement under section 14A, a further report under section 14B(3) or a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule
1A,

(b) the publication of any matter in communications between—

(i) an Assembly member or a member of the Assembly's staff or a member or an officer or member of the staff of any other body or provider subject to investigation by the Commissioner, and

(ii) the Commissioner or a member of his staff,

in connection with an investigation by the Commissioner,

(c) the publication of any matter in communications between any person and an Assembly member in connection with a complaint by the person to the Commissioner, and

(d) the publication of any matter in communications between any person and the Commissioner or a member of his staff in connection with a complaint by the person to the Commissioner."

12. In section 15(3) (interpretation of reference to a Commissioner's advisers), insert at the end "or paragraph 6(6) of Schedule 1A".
13. In section 17(1) (use of information by Commissioner in other capacity), after "Health Service Commissioner" insert ", the office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman".
14.—(1) Section 18 (consultation with other Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (duty to consult), after paragraph (b) insert—
"(ba) by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman under the Government of Wales Act 1998,",.
and after "Commissioner", in both places where it appears in the words following paragraph (d), insert "or the Ombudsman".
(3) In subsection (2) (matters which may be covered by consultation), after "another Commissioner" insert "or the Welsh Administration Ombudsman".
(4) In subsection (3) (confidentiality), omit "by a Commissioner or his officers".
15.—(1) Section 19 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) After the definition of "allotted sum" insert—
""the Assembly" means the National Assembly for Wales;".
(3) In the definition of "officer", insert at the end "and, in the case of sthe Health Service Commissioner for Wales, any member of his staff;".
16.—(1) Schedule 1 (the Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, before "COMMISSIONERS" insert "ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH".
(3) Before paragraph 1 insert—
"Introductory
A1. In this Schedule references to a Commissioner (or Health Service Commissioner) are to the Health Service Commissioner for England or the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland or to either of those Commissioners (as the context requires)."
(4) In paragraph 2(1) (acting Commissioners), for "Where any" substitute "Where either".
(5) In paragraphs 3(2)(a) and 3A(2)(a) (ineligibility of certain persons for appointment), omit "or for Wales".
(6) In paragraph 6 (salary of person holding more than one office)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), for "one or more" substitute "either or both", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "two or more" substitute "both".

(7) Omit paragraph 11(2) (staff of Welsh Commissioner).
(8) In paragraph 12 (performance of functions of Commissioner by officers of another Commissioner), for "another Commissioner or the Parliamentary Commissioner" substitute "the other Commissioner, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Welsh Administration Ombudsman".
17. After that Schedule insert—
SECTION 1(3)

SCHEDULE
  SCHEDULE 1A

    THE WELSH COMMISSIONER
    Appointment
    1.—(1) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall be appointed by Her Majesty.
    (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall hold office until the end of the year of service in which he attains the age of 65.
    (3) Her Majesty may relieve the Health Service Commissioner for Wales of office before the end of that year of service—

    (a) at his request, or

    (b) on Her Majesty being satisfied that he is incapable for medical reasons of performing the duties of his office and of requesting to be relieved of it.

    (4) Her Majesty may remove the Health Service Commissioner for Wales from office before the end of the year of service in which he attains the age of 65 if, on the ground of misbehaviour, the Secretary of State recommends that Her Majesty should do so; but the Secretary of State shall not so recommend without consulting the Assembly.
    Status
    2.—(1) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall be regarded as holding office under Her Majesty and as exercising his functions on behalf of the Crown.
    (2) Service as the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall not be service in Her Majesty's Home Civil Service but he shall be taken to be a Crown servant for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
    Appointment of acting Commissioner
    3.—(1) Where the office of Health Service Commissioner for Wales becomes vacant, Her Majesty may, at any time during the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the vacancy arose, appoint a person to act as that Commissioner.
    (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (5), an acting Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
    (3) An acting Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall not hold office after—

    (a) the appointment of a new Health Service Commissioner for Wales, or

    (b) the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the vacancy arose,

    whichever occurs first.
    (4) Her Majesty may at any time relieve an acting Health Service Commissioner for Wales of office—

    (a) at his request, or

    (b) on Her Majesty being satisfied that he is incapable for medical reasons of performing the duties of his office and of requesting to be relieved of it.

    (5) Her Majesty may remove an acting Health Service Commissioner for Wales from office at any time if, on the ground of misbehaviour, the Secretary of State recommends that Her Majesty should do so; but the Secretary of State shall not so recommend without consulting the Assembly.
    (6) A person appointed under this paragraph shall, while he holds office, be regarded for all purposes (except those of paragraph 1 and this paragraph) as the Health Service Commissioner for Wales.
    Ineligibility of certain persons for appointment
    4.—(1) A person who is a member of a body mentioned in section 2(1) or (2) shall not be appointed as Health Service Commissioner for Wales; and a person so appointed shall not, during his appointment, become a member of such a body.
    (2) A person mentioned in section 2A(1) or (2) shall not be appointed as Health Service Commissioner for Wales; and a person so appointed shall not, during his appointment, become a person so mentioned.
    Remuneration
    5.—(1) The Assembly shall—

    (a) pay the Health Service Commissioner for Wales such salary and any such allowances, and

    (b) make any such payments towards the provision of superannuation benefits for or in respect of him,

    as may be provided for by or under the terms of his appointment.
    (2) But where the Health Service Commissioner for Wales is also—

    (a) Parliamentary Commissioner, or

    (b) Welsh Administration Ombudsman,

    he shall not be entitled to any salary as Health Service Commissioner for Wales.
    (3) Where the Health Service Commissioner for Wales also holds either or both of the other offices of Health Service Commissioner, he shall be entitled only to the salary pertaining to such one of the offices of Health Service Commissioner as he selects.
    (4) The Assembly shall pay to or in respect of a person who has ceased to hold office as Health Service Commissioner for Wales such amounts (if any) by way of—

    (a) pension or gratuities, or

    (b) provision for those benefits,

    as may have been provided for by or under the terms of his appointment.
    (5) In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (offices etc. to which section 1 of that Act applies), in the list of "Offices" insert—
    "Health Service Commissioner for Wales."
    (6) The Assembly shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (5) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
    Staff and advisers
    6.—(1) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales may appoint such staff as he considers necessary for assisting him in the exercise of his functions.
    (2) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall include among his staff such persons having a command of the Welsh language as he considers are needed to enable him to investigate complaints in Welsh.
    (3) Service as a member of the staff of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall be service in Her Majesty's Home Civil Service.
    (4) The Assembly shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (3) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
    (5) Any function of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales may be exercised by—

    (a) a member of his staff,

    (b) a member of the staff of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, or

    (c) an officer of the Parliamentary Commissioner or of another Health Service Commissioner,

    if authorised by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales for that purpose; and references in any enactment to a member of the staff of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales include any person exercising any function of his by virtue of paragraph (b) or (c).
    (6) To assist him in the exercise of his functions the Health Service Commissioner for Wales may obtain advice from any person who, in his opinion, is qualified to give it.
    (7) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales may pay to any person from whom he obtains advice under sub-paragraph (6) any such fees or allowances as he may determine.
    (8) No arrangements shall be made—

    (a) for any of the functions of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales or of the Assembly to be exercised by the other or by a member of the other's staff, or

    (b) for the provision of any administrative, professional or technical services by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales or the Assembly for the other.

    Reports
    7.—(1) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales—

    (a) shall annually prepare and lay before the Assembly a general report on the performance of his functions, and

    (b) may from time to time prepare and lay before the Assembly such other reports with respect to his functions as he thinks fit.

    (2) The Assembly shall, and the Health Service Commissioner for Wales may, publish reports laid before the Assembly under this paragraph.
    Expenses
    8.—(1) The expenses of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall, so far as they cannot be met out of income received by him, be met by the Assembly.
    (2) Those expenses include any sums payable by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales in consequence of a breach, in the course of the performance of any of his functions, of any contractual or other duty (whether that breach occurs by reason of his act or omission or that of a member of his staff or any other person assisting him in the exercise of his functions).
    Estimates
    9.—(1) For each financial year of the Assembly after the first, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall prepare, and submit to the executive committee, an estimate of the income and expenses of his office.
    (2) Each such estimate shall be submitted to the executive committee at least five months before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates.
    (3) The executive committee shall examine each such estimate submitted to it and, after having done so, shall lay the estimate before the Assembly with any such modifications as the committee thinks fit.
    (4) Where the executive committee proposes to lay such an estimate before the Assembly with modifications, the committee shall first consult the Secretary of State and have regard to any advice which he may give.
    (5) In this paragraph "the executive committee" means the committee of the Assembly referred to as the executive committee in the Government of Wales Act 1998.
    Accounts
    10.—(1) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall keep proper accounting records.
    (2) The Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall, for each financial year of the Assembly, prepare accounts in accordance with directions given to him by the Treasury.
    (3) The directions which the Treasury may give under sub-paragraph (2) include, in particular, directions as to—

    (a) the information to be contained in the accounts and the manner in which it is to be presented,

    (b) the methods and principles in accordance with which the accounts are to be prepared, and

    (c) the additional information (if any) that is to accompany the accounts.

    Audit
    11.—(1) The accounts prepared by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales for any financial year of the Assembly shall be submitted by him to the Auditor General for Wales no later than five months after the end of that financial year.
    (2) The Auditor General for Wales shall—

    (a) examine and certify any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, and

    (b) no later than four months after the accounts are submitted to him, lay before the Assembly a copy of them as certified by him together with his report on them.

    (3) In examining any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall, in particular, satisfy himself that the expenditure to which the accounts relate has been incurred lawfully and in accordance with the authority which governs it.
    Accounting officer
    12.—(1) The accounting officer for the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall be the Health Service Commissioner for Wales.
    (2) But where—

    (a) the Health Service Commissioner for Wales is incapable of discharging his responsibilities as accounting officer, or

    (b) the office of Health Service Commissioner for Wales is vacant (and there is no acting Health Service Commissioner for Wales),

    the Treasury may designate a member of the staff of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales to be the accounting officer for so long as paragraph (a) or (b) applies.
    (3) The accounting officer for the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales shall have, in relation to the accounts of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales and the finances of the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, the responsibilities which are from time to time specified by the Treasury.
    (4) In this paragraph references to responsibilities include in particular—

    (a) responsibilities in relation to the signing of accounts,

    (b) responsibilities for the propriety and regularity of the finances of the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, and

    (c) responsibilities for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the resources of the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales are used.

    (5) The responsibilities which may be specified under this paragraph include responsibilities owed to—

    (a) the Assembly, the executive committee or the Audit Committee of the Assembly, or

    (b) the House of Commons or its Committee of Public Accounts.

    (6) If requested to do so by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, the Audit Committee of the Assembly may—

    (a) on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts take evidence from the accounting officer for the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, and

    (b) report to the Committee of Public Accounts and transmit to that Committee any evidence so taken.

    (7) In this paragraph and paragraphs 13 and 14 "the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales" means the Health Service Commissioner for Wales and the members of his staff; and in this paragraph "the executive committee" has the same meaning as in paragraph 9.
    Examinations into use of resources
    13.—(1) The Auditor General for Wales may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Health Service Commissioner for Wales has used the resources of the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales in discharging his functions.
    (2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not be construed as entitling the Auditor General for Wales to question the merits of the policy objectives of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales.
    (3) In determining how to exercise his functions under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall take into account the views of the Audit Committee of the Assembly as to the examinations which he should carry out under this paragraph.
    (4) The Auditor General for Wales may lay before the Assembly a report of the results of any examination carried out by him under this paragraph.
    (5) The Auditor General for Wales and the Comptroller and Auditor General may co-operate with, and give assistance to, each other in connection with the carrying out of examinations in respect of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales under this paragraph or section 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).
    Examinations by the Comptroller and Auditor General
    14.—(1) For the purpose of enabling him to carry out examinations into, and report to Parliament on, the finances of the Office of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, the Comptroller and Auditor General—

    (a) shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents in the custody or under the control of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, or of the Auditor General for Wales, as he may reasonably require for that purpose, and

    (b) shall be entitled to require from any person holding or accountable for any of those documents any assistance, information or explanation which he reasonably thinks necessary for that purpose.

    (2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

    (a) consult the Auditor General for Wales, and

    (b) take into account any relevant work done or being done by the Auditor General for Wales,

    before he acts in reliance on sub-paragraph (1) or carries out an examination in respect of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales under section 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations)."").
    The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
    Lord Roberts of Conwy: I confirm the unqualified welcome for the proposal to establish a Welsh Administration Ombudsman and the consequential changes in relation to the Health Service Commissioner. I particularly welcome the fact that the Welsh Administration Ombudsman is not confined to the assembly and its executive. He can examine complaints of maladministration by related bodies, including the new Welsh Development Agency and other bodies receiving a significant proportion of their funding from assembly sources. The possibility that they may be complained against should help keep those bodies on the straight and narrow track of propriety.
    1324
    I also give a hearty welcome to the novel proposals for a response procedure, when the Welsh Administration Ombudsman has investigated a complaint and found maladministration. The body responsible would be given three months in which to respond. If it fails to do so, or if its response is unsatisfactory, the WAO will issue a further report setting out the action required. If the assembly is the guilty party, the first secretary will be required to move that the assembly approve the WAO's recommendations as to the form of redress.
    I hope that it will be quickly established that such motions are normally carried in the assembly. There was a striking contrast between the acceptance by the Welsh Office of parliamentary commissioners' decisions and the grudging refusal of many local authorities to accept the findings of the local government commissioner. If the procedure whereby the first secretary has to move acceptance of the WAO's recommendations prove successful in practice, I hope that a similar procedure will be made obligatory on local authorities.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thank the noble Lord for his typically generous remarks. It is an enormous improvement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not here. These amendments have come about because we have listened carefully. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that an in-built structural mechanism is a very useful discipline for government at whatever level.
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Schedule 8 [Relations with local government: supplementary]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 246A:
    Page 97, line 39, after ("election") insert ("(after the first)").
    The noble Lord said: Within this group are Amendments Nos. 246A and 246B together with Amendment No. 247. Amendments Nos. 246A and 246B are technical. The assembly will have to consider changes to its schemes for local government and the voluntary sector in the year following the ordinary elections to the assembly. The amendments are designed to give a degree of flexibility which we thought, on reflection, was more appropriate.
    At present, paragraph 6 to Schedule 8 and subsection (5) of Clause 114 would oblige the assembly to consider changing its local government and voluntary sector schemes by May 2000. We have thought about this. The assembly does not come into being until the end of May next year and its early life will be dominated by organising delivery not only of duties placed by the legislation but also the transfer of functions. That will mean that in the first year of the assembly's being the statutory schemes will not have had full 12-month terms. It is sensible not to insist that the assembly should consider whether to change the local government and voluntary sector schemes within the year following the first ordinary elections. We will propose an identical amendment for the sustainable development scheme which the assembly will prepare under Clause 121.
    Amendment No. 247 does not allow the assembly to delegate its function for making or revising its scheme with the voluntary sector. This ensures consistency of treatment for the voluntary sector with the other schemes that the assembly will make for local government and sustainable development, where the functions again cannot be delegated. I beg to move.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think I understand these two amendments. They are quite sensible. The noble Lord did not say much about Amendment No. 247. I take it that the Government have had second thoughts about any of this being delegated. Amendment No. 247 prevents delegation. It seems to be a little prescriptive, but there is merit in it.
    On page 58 of the Bill, subsection (5) says:
    "The Assembly shall keep the scheme under review and in the year following each ordinary election …".
    I take it that an ordinary election is not the first one. The first election is an extraordinary election. If it is not, then perhaps the Government will need another amendment at Report stage to clear that up.
    What the noble Lord has done is quite sensible. Dare I say that it shows the merits of a second Chamber?
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 114 [Relations with voluntary organisations]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 246B and 247:
    Page 58, line 11, after ("election") insert ("(after the first)").
    Page 58, line 14, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 16.
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    4 p.m.
    On Question, Whether Clause 114, as amended, shall be agreed to?
    Lord Aberdare: I am in the rather awkward position of opposing that this clause should stand part when in fact I very much welcome it. I shall be horrified if it is not a part of the Bill. It is the only part that mentions voluntary bodies. The only way to get further information from the Government was to table this kind of probing amendment.
    I must declare an interest. I am the president of the National Council of YMCAs in Wales.
    When I first became interested in this I wanted to find out some of the statistics about the grants that are made to voluntary bodies. The best information that I could get was in a letter from Win Griffiths, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office, to Denzil Davies, MP, on 14th April 1998. This disclosed that the total grants to voluntary bodies by the Welsh Office in the year 1996–97 were over £15 million. This was distributed to 285 different voluntary bodies up and down Wales—north, south, east and west—and, varied in amounts from more than £1 million to the Welsh Books Council to £300 to Ambleston Hall, and there were many grants in between. They arose from various statutes but they are all of great importance to the recipients.
    1326
    I welcome the scheme envisaged in the clause. It is the main provision of Clause 114. It will form the basis of what comes before the assembly in due course when it takes over the responsibilities from the Secretary of State. It is of great importance to all voluntary bodies in Wales. They all welcome the idea of close co-operation with the assembly. I would ask the noble Lord if he can give more information about the status and timetable of the scheme.
    The Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which has a membership of 600 from various organisations, is keen on the scheme and is working hard to produce a draft agreement. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could give us any information about the progress of the scheme, in particular whether it is likely to be published before the Bill leaves this House.
    I wish to mention a particular grant scheme which exists under the Headquarter Grants Education Order 1990 to assist the central administration of voluntary bodies in the youth service area. I understand that in Wales it has an annual budget of £361,000, administered by the Wales Youth Agency. Of that, the YMCA received £45,000 this year, the first of a three-year programme. I hope that whatever happens in the future, the new assembly will accept that commitment for the two remaining years because it is of enormous importance to the YMCA. The same applies to other bodies with an on-going programme.
    I turn to the future of the youth service in Wales. I should not like it to be thought that the YMCA considered itself to be the only voluntary body. There are many others and all carry out extremely good work. There are, for instance, the Urdd Gobaith Cymru, which is the Welsh voluntary body, the Welsh Association of Youth Clubs, the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, the Federation of Girls' and Boys' Clubs, the Scouts, the Guides, the young farmers' clubs and various Church bodies. Perhaps I may quote from a document produced by the Wales Youth Agency, Building the Future, to illustrate the importance of the youth service in Wales. It states:
    "In Wales over ¼million young people are in contact with a range of youth work organisations on a regular basis. Young people find youth work attractive and value the opportunities it provides. Youth work is a partnership between voluntary youth organisations and local authority organisations. It offers opportunities to find challenge and adventure, advice, information and counselling, recognition of achievement and enjoyment. Unitary authorities have a statutory duty to ensure the quality of their youth service".
    The YMCA is at the sharp end of this work, dealing with some of the major problems of young people, including homelessness, unemployment and drug and alcohol abuse, as well as providing social and sporting activities. On any one night, for example, the YMCA provides emergency accommodation in its hostels for 177 young people, 140 of them in Cardiff alone.
    Yet since the unitary authorities took over we have lost two full-time and four part-time staff as a result of the withdrawal of grant aid. I know that other youth organisations are in a similar predicament. The Urdd is suffering from reduced funding for its area officers and is also being charged for the premises in which its members meet. The Guides are also paying more for hiring their meeting places.

    1327
    In the Welsh Office Green Paper, Learning is for Everyone, Chapter 2 refers to the importance of the youth service. Paragraph 23 states:
    "The Youth Service and associated voluntary sector organisations are critically important in the drive towards a learning country".
    However, its proposals to implement these good intentions are limited to exhortations; for example, clarifying the duty of local authorities to secure a youth service, extending that duty to require local authorities to collaborate with the voluntary sector youth services and so forth. There is no commitment to extra funding, except for a grant of £300,000 to the Wales Youth Agency.
    The Government have made education one of their main priorities and have allocated extra funds to local authorities for that purpose. That purpose should include the youth service. However, it is not clear that the extra funding is always used by local authorities for educational purposes, including the youth service.
    The Bill, in subsection (4)(a), refers to:
    "how the Assembly proposes to provide assistance to relevant voluntary organisations (whether by grants, loans, guarantees or any other means)".
    Does that mean that assembly funding will be available to the voluntary bodies involved in the youth service? If so, how does it fit in with the local authorities' statutory duty to provide a youth service? The two appear to overlap.
    I cannot help wondering where the assembly is to find much of the money that is required for the youth service. We often hear quoted the figure of £7 billion coming from the Welsh Office when the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are transferred to the assembly. But, unfortunately, that includes financing many demanding commitments; for instance, local authorities and health authorities as well as the cost of establishing and running the assembly itself, including the salaries and expenses of its members. The debate last week on the financial arrangements and the Barnett formula did not suggest that the assembly was likely to have much spare cash.
    I am not very sanguine about the future of the youth service. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some encouragement. I conclude with a Welsh saying:
    "Ni wna geiriau teg hau'r tir".
    It means, "Fair words will not sow the land", or, more colloquially, "Fair words butter no parsnips". I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us a bit of butter.
    Lord Hooson: The purpose of my intervention is simply to ask a question. Is it intended that the national assembly advisory committee or the Welsh Office should draw up a moral scheme for consideration by the assembly? It would be reassuring for those who are concerned about the relationship with voluntary organisations. The assembly can amend the scheme as it wishes, but it would be helpful if there were an intention to take one of those two courses.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for giving us an opportunity to debate
    1328
    briefly the issue of partnership with the voluntary sector. I declare an interest in that the Welsh Language Board, which I chair, has a formal funding partnership with a number of voluntary organisations, including the Wales Council for Voluntary Action.
    The national assembly will have a key role in the funding and debating of priorities within the voluntary sector, both directly and indirectly. There is an opportunity for a new strategic partnership not only in the youth service, to which the noble Lord has referred, but in the whole area of social and environmental policy which has such an active voluntary sector in Wales. It is estimated that if the 23,000-plus voluntary organisations were active at the same time one in three of the population would be involved in the voluntary sector in Wales. There is a wealth of experience and good will which must be mobilised in partnership with the assembly in order to create a new kind of society in the context of which we will operate in the 21st century.
    Already the voluntary sector exhibits that inclusivity and participation of which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ron Davies, speaks so often. I sincerely hope that the Government will take on board the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Already compacts are developing between government and the voluntary sector throughout the UK.
    I assume that any preparatory relationship or scheme between the voluntary sector and the assembly would be on the lines of the compacts already being drafted for all four nations of the UK, recognising the role of the voluntary sector, the key policy statements of voluntary organisations, the need for volunteering and the whole area of community development and, equally important, the whole procedure for partnership and representation, particularly representation in relation to funding decisions.
    Here, I declare myself to be on a learning curve, because it is not easy for a public body, when dealing with voluntary organisations, to understand the nature of that organisation's culture. Very often it is possible for a public body to have certain priorities which may be strategically sound and which may have key functional objectives, but they are not well understood by voluntary organisations. It is particularly important that the assembly approaches the voluntary sector in a way different from its approach to local government, to the health service, as we have already heard, and to other partnership organisations which have a statutory basis.
    For that reason, there is much merit in the WCVA's suggestion of a joint liaison committee, not that we want to create too many committees. However, there is a case for such a committee to advise the assembly and members of the voluntary sector and to oversee the working of the voluntary sector scheme.
    Also, I am attracted by the proposal that there should be a support centre for the activity of the voluntary sector, providing information and support within the assembly building itself or close to it. I understand that the WCVA has made an offer on behalf of the sector to seek the funding for the operation of such a facility.

    1329
    There needs to be space for it so that there can be a close relationship between the voluntary sector and the assembly in practice.
    The Earl of Courtown: Like my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I welcome this clause but there are one or two points which concern me which I should like the Minister to clarify. I should also declare an interest as a trustee of a chronic pain charity which is based in South Wales.
    My main concern is that voluntary fund-raisers are already complying with many rules and regulations as to how they work. Although I accept that there is a need for such regulation, it is now becoming excessive in places and it irritates many hard-working and dedicated fund-raisers who, quite understandably, do not like to be told to fill in more forms and comply with more regulations. Therefore, I am anxious that the assembly will not increase needless bureaucracy.
    Finally, will the Minister tell me whether the assembly will be able to alter or change in any way anything concerning the relationship between charities and the Charity Commission? If so, what and how? I suspect that primary legislation would be required, but I should be grateful to the Minister if he would clarify the point.
    Lord Stanley or Alderley: I have my name to this Motion for the same reason as my noble friend Lord Aberdare; that is, to try to find out what the Government have in mind with regard to the assembly's role in relation to voluntary organisations.
    As my noble friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Courtown have explained the possible problems, I shall emphasise only one particular point. Will the assembly have the power to make rules and regulations for those voluntary organisations which are not dependent in any way whatever on state money or aid? I am thinking of, for example, the RNLI which is supported entirely by voluntary money and help.
    Perhaps I may repeat what my noble friend Lord Courtown has just said. I accept now and I accepted during the passage of charities legislation that charities, particularly with regard to their money, need careful supervision. But on behalf of those many selfless and dedicated men and women—I call them slaves—who put in their time for nothing, I ask for an assurance from the Minister that the assembly will not add any bureaucracy to irritate them because, as the Committee will know, I do not trust politicians, assembly members or councillors not to be tempted to do so.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Prys-Davies: Whatever the scale of the statutory provisions and whatever the market can provide, I am sure that in Wales we cannot go along without the voluntary contribution. Therefore, I am extremely grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has given us an opportunity to discuss this clause, a clause which gives me a great deal of satisfaction.
    Reference has been made to the scheme and I should like to ask two or three specific questions about it. First, it is my understanding—and this picks up a point made
    1330
    by my noble friend Lord Hooson—that the proposed scheme will to a greater extent be based on the draft voluntary sector compact, which, as I understand it, is currently out for consultation. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
    Secondly, I am told by many people who are engaged with the voluntary sector in Wales that the relationships between the voluntary bodies and the assembly are not the only relationships which will matter. They tell me that the relationships between the voluntary bodies and the assembly and also local authorities will matter a great deal. That is because—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested that that is the case—in Wales, compared with England, there are very few financial resources available to the voluntary organisations, apart from local and central government.
    Therefore, it is important to foster the relationship between the assembly, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations. But I am not sure that that can be achieved in the proposed scheme. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
    Secondly, the permanent voluntary services unit is not without its critics. But I believe that there should be a group of inter-departmental senior officials within the Welsh assembly, possibly with an assembly secretary in the chair, to consider the relevance of voluntary activities across the frontiers of all the departments of the assembly. I ask the Minister whether that can be addressed in the scheme.
    Perhaps I may refer next to the report of Lord Wolfenden on the future of voluntary organisations which was published in 1978. The committee envisaged that in the event of a Welsh assembly being established, there would be an increasing role for a central body representing the across-the-board interest of voluntary organisations in Wales to give a lead in providing advice and information. I believe that that recommendation is still valid and should be taken on board by the voluntary organisations in Wales.
    Finally, reference was made to the charity commissioners. I have great respect for the charity commissioners and I have found them to be extremely helpful. But the day may well come when in Wales we shall need a Welsh office of the Charity Commissioners so that we do not have to look to Liverpool, Taunton or London. With those few remarks, I endorse very much what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Stanley.
    Lord Roberts of Conwy: Like other Members of the Committee, I, too, have received a letter dated 21st May, which is very supportive of the clause from the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. In addition to the 600 organisations that the council represents in Wales, it states in the letter that it is in contact with a great many more. I know that organisation and I have no reason to doubt its claims.
    The WCVA has very high expectations of the assembly and of the anticipated scheme. It states in the letter that there is a draft compact arising out of the Labour Party's election manifesto commitments, which is already available for consultation in Wales and

    1331
    elsewhere. The Welsh compact sets out how the Government will work with the voluntary sector. It covers recognition of the respective roles of the voluntary sector and government, key policy statements on voluntary organisations, procedures for representation, partnership working and funding administration.
    Therefore, the council says:
    "The Compact will … provide a framework of mutual expectations and commitments upon which the Assembly will be able to base its working arrangements with the voluntary sector".
    The same letter from Peter Bryant, who is head of policy for the WCVA, goes on to argue the need for a joint body to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred—that is, a joint body between the assembly and the voluntary sector. The letter states quite clearly:
    "It is proposed that there should be a joint liaison committee, made up of members of the Assembly and elected representatives of the sector, to oversee the implementation and working of the Voluntary Sector Scheme".
    It also states that the liaison committee should report to the assembly's executive committee and to that of the WCVA. So the WCVA is very clear about what it wants from this particular clause.
    Indeed, the letter finally proposes that,
    "a voluntary sector information and support centre should be established within the Assembly building".
    I pause for breath here because I wonder whether all these aspirations have been taken into account. I certainly hope that they were not just referendum-time promises, which were made to the voluntary sector simply to harvest a "Yes" vote. If such promises were made but not honoured, I have no doubt that there would be very deep disappointment throughout the sector.
    However, while I wish the implementation of the clause well, I believe that someone should utter a word of caution to the voluntary sector and its representatives in Wales that it must safeguard its independence. Welcome as government support in financial and organisational terms may be, surely the strength of the sector lies in its independence and in its voluntary basis and spirit, which must on no account be compromised. As Mr. Bryant states on page one of the letter to which I referred,
    "The Assembly will … Determine policy and priorities in the majority of areas of concern to the voluntary sector; control, directly or indirectly, most of the public funding for the sector; oversee or influence the activities of most of the agencies with which the sector works".
    and so on. That seems to me to spell out an enormous amount of influence on the voluntary sector. I hope that both parties—that is, the assembly and the voluntary sector—are aware of the potential fragility of their relationship and that they respect each other's independence as well as perhaps the dependence of the voluntary sector. It would be fatal to the voluntary sector if it found itself excessively controlled and directed by the public sector only to have its voluntarism exploited for uncertain ends.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken, not least
    1332
    the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who raised the question some months ago in this Chamber as to what place there would be in the Government of Wales Bill for the voluntary sector. I remember indicating to him that Clause 114 was likely to deal with that area.
    The thrust of what has been said by all noble Lords, is, I hope, entirely consistent with what has been set out in Clause 114. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked for a little more precision as regards dates and timing, which I shall now outline. The Secretary of State for Wales is formulating with the WCVA, and other representatives of the voluntary sector in Wales, a compact setting out the future relationship with the voluntary sector. The consultation exercise was launched on 6th March and will run until 10th July.
    The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked if I could give an indication as to whether or not the conclusions will have been published by the time of Third Reading. All I can say at present is that discussions are going extremely well, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. It is hoped to reach final agreement later this summer. I do not know the date of Third Reading, but I believe that it would be reasonable for me to undertake to write to the noble Lord shortly before Third Reading, placing a copy of the letter in the Library, giving as much detail as I shall then have. It may not contain definitive conclusions, but at least I shall be able to recite the story so far. I undertake to do so.
    Other specific questions were raised. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, posed two important questions. First, it is very important that the dead hand of bureaucracy—and that is an awful mixed metaphor—does not extend its reach. I say that because, if it were dead, it could not do so by definition. I take that point on board. I was formerly a trustee of the NSPCC and I recognise that there is sometimes irritation, especially where money is being donated by members of the public. They are entitled to have it scrupulously dealt with. There is nothing more of a disincentive to voluntary giving than the fear, sometimes unfortunately justified, that money is being used for illegitimate purposes in the running of an organisation in a way that is not as prudent as it should be.
    Two noble Lords referred to the Charity Commission. There is no prospect of the Welsh assembly being able to interfere with the statute which relates to the Charity Commission. It is not a Welsh Office function. Indeed, I must place another hat on my fevered brow because it is a Home Office function. As regards the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, as to whether or not the Welsh assembly would be able to impose rules and regulations on such bodies as the RNLI which are in receipt of no public money, it does not seem to me that that would fall within the remit of the assembly. However, as charities, they would be subject to the usual remit of the Charity Commission.
    Other specific questions were raised about how the compact would work. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether or not this would be a template. It would certainly be a pretty clear indication of what discussions had indicated was likely to be useful. Ultimately it will be for the

    1333
    assembly to decide. However, bearing in mind the nature of the consultation, which is very widespread, one would assume that the assembly would pay close regard to the compact which had been negotiated even if it could not literally be bound by its terms.
    My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies spoke about voluntary bodies which have a connection with local authorities. Indeed, that is certainly the case with the NSPCC in various different ways. That would not be included in the scheme because the assembly cannot bind local authorities in their relationships with charitable bodies. However, there is no reason at all why they should not consult. I very much take on board the points made by my noble friend. All of his points relating to relations between local government and voluntary bodies and whether there should be a joint working group seem to me to be ideas for development by the assembly.
    On the question of a compact, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who referred to other work. He is quite right. There is parallel work along the same lines by Secretaries of State in other parts of the United Kingdom who have responsibility for voluntary sector matters. We gave a commitment in the White Paper that the compact would be in place. The purpose of Clause 114 is to require the assembly to draw up a scheme to cover the same kind of subject matter. I assure the Committee that before Clause 114 was drafted there was consultation between the Welsh Office and the WCVA at official level. The provision has been given a warm reception by the voluntary sector.
    The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked about funding. One finds the answer in part in Clause 114(4) which states,
    "The scheme shall specify—
    how the Assembly proposes to provide assistance to relevant voluntary organisations (whether by grants, loans, guarantees or any other means)".
    I take the noble Lord's point that that will be subject to the assembly's discretion within the overall budget of £7 billion or so.
    I believe that we have behaved properly and honourably towards the voluntary sector. We consulted it about the proposals for the compact. We consulted it about the precise drafting of Clause 114. On that basis of co-operative endeavour I invite the Committee to come to the conclusion in due time that this clause should stand part of the Bill. I recognise that the noble Lord raised legitimate questions. In many ways Clause 114 is the noble Lord's progeny, at least in part.
    Clause 114 agreed to.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 247ZA:
    After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—
    CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESS AND VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
    (" . The Assembly shall carry out consultation with representatives of business, representatives of voluntary organisations and the Partnership Council, having regard to the impact of the exercise by the Assembly of its functions on their respective interests.").
    The noble Lord said: This group of amendments relates to Clause 115 and concerns the consultation which representatives of business will have with the assembly. Clause 115 of the Bill states,
    "The Assembly shall carry out such consultation with representatives of business as it considers appropriate".
    My noble friend and I have tabled amendments to try to strengthen that provision. However, our preferred position is stated in Amendment No. 247ZA which seeks to rewrite Clause 115 and to put in its place our proposed new clause. I believe that the provisions in our proposed new clause are a good deal stronger than those in Clause 115. Our proposed new clause acknowledges the voluntary organisations and asks for consultation with them. It also acknowledges the existence of the partnership council and asks for consultation with it as regards any issue which has an impact on the functions of these bodies. We simply state in the amendment that,
    "The Assembly shall carry out consultation",
    with regard to all the organisations I have mentioned. We do not state that the assembly shall carry out consultation as it considers appropriate. This is particularly important as regards manufacturing industry. If the Government do not like voluntary organisations and the partnership council being included in the clause, our other amendments in the group I am discussing would simply amend Clause 115 to make it state,
    "The Assembly shall carry out consultation with representatives of business having regard to the impact".
    We should not leave it to the assembly to decide whether it is appropriate to consult.
    Over the past 19 years, Wales, like some other parts of the United Kingdom, has seen considerable change in its industrial base. It still has steelworks at Llanwern and Port Talbot, although perhaps I should not say that too loudly in Scotland. It has seen a huge growth in its electronics industry, its electronics components industry and its car industry. These new industries are just as important now as was the traditional mining industry in the past. Therefore it is important that businesses are consulted by the assembly. I have no doubt the Minister will tell me that the wording in the Bill,
    "The Assembly shall carry out such consultation with representatives of business as it considers appropriate",
    means that the assembly will consult widely and on everything. Ministers always say that when we discuss this kind of amendment. The Opposition have every right not to believe Ministers. That is the name of the game, so to speak. If the assembly intends to consult widely and in virtually every case, why is that not on the face of the Bill, and why not delete the words in the Bill, "as it considers appropriate"?
    I wish to discuss Amendment No. 247A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, as it covers the same ground. However, he goes a good deal further than my proposed new clause in Amendment No. 247ZA. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his amendment specifies a considerable number of businesses and organisations. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and I are covering the same ground here. We want to see a little more in Clause 115 than three

    1335
    lines of text to cover the relationship between business and the assembly. Clause 114 is lengthy and is devoted to voluntary organisations. Clause 113, which is also fairly lengthy, is devoted to relations with local government. I believe that Clause 115 should be more detailed. If it must be brief, its content should be a good deal stronger than it is. My proposed new clause proposes a way of strengthening the measure. If the Government do not want to go that far, the two amendments to Clause 115 in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, suggest how the measure could be strengthened a little more. I beg to move.
    Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the spirit of the amendment. I believe it is important that there should be direct and ready access among business, voluntary organisations, organisations such as the partnership council and the new assembly. In the previous amendment we discussed the possibility of a joint committee with voluntary organisations. To my mind it is wrong that there should be a filter between the assembly and the businesses and associations that it is intended to serve which would prevent direct communication. We support that aspect of this amendment.
    Further, we believe it is important that there should be a positive duty upon the assembly to consult. Obviously as regards ordinary run of the mill matters it will consult, but the critical issues which cause controversy may be the ones where consultation is ignored. For that reason I support the amendment.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: At the risk of my reputation, I again find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. There is an important issue here for the unfolding of the assembly's work. In that context I welcome the great weekend declaration at Llangollen made by William Hague; namely, that we are all now to make the assembly work. I also welcome the declaration of Mr. Michael Ancram that we are all now new unionists. We must wait to see what happens as regards the Conservative Party in the assembly. I say all that to cover myself.
    The important point here is that we should treat all our social partners in the assembly on the same basis. I am a little fascinated by the wording in the relevant clauses that refer to those social partners. As regards local government under Clause 113, the assembly is to "sustain and promote" it. In Clause 114, as regards the voluntary organisations we have just debated, the assembly is,
    "to promote the interests of relevant voluntary organisations".
    A little later we shall discuss equality of opportunity, to which we must have due regard. A report will have to be made on that subject. "Sustainable development", which again we shall discuss later, is to be promoted. But when we come to the poor business sector, the assembly is, according to Clause 115, only to,
    "carry out such consultation with representatives of business as it considers appropriate … ".
    1336
    There is a serious defect here in the Bill. It seems to me that the legislation we are drafting for the National Assembly for Wales falls far short of the best practice of other European legislation and indeed of the best practice of the European Union, its parliament, its Commission, ECOSOC, its Committee of the Regions, and so on, where there are very clear procedures for consultation with business and business experts in any area where legislation is being drafted and regulations are being prepared, so that the business sector knows the direct costs. By the "business sector" I mean, in accordance with my Amendment No. 247A, a whole series of potential forms of enterprise, including people employed by those forms of enterprise and indeed charities and other organisations in the third sector. Whatever the businesses are and whatever form they take, then surely the business costs to them of regulation are an essential issue.
    We debated this matter earlier when I put forward a proposal which I discussed with CBI Wales to try to have the business impact assessed. I appreciate upon due reflection that may not have been the appropriate part of the Bill to try to secure an amendment, but it seems to me that Clause 115 is far too broad, too unspecific and too lacking in content in contrast with other social partnerships and factors we have been debating.
    It is essential that we should have, if not a strengthened clause, then standing orders to ensure a form of consultation for all aspects of relevant subordinate legislation of the assembly with the business sector and that there should be clear deadlines and procedures for all such consultation. Indeed, there might be a case for using the regional committees as an important form of business consultation. But there should be clear guidelines in standing orders on the intended form and structure of business consultation.
    I give one final example of what I mean. We witnessed yesterday in Cardiff a marvellously good-spirited demonstration on very serious issues relating to the agricultural industry and the countryside. The Secretary of State, Mr. Ron Davies, saw fit—and I congratulate him—to meet not only representatives of the farming unions but also others who are in social partnership in the country side, the voluntary bodies and others involved in the demonstration in support of the agricultural industry.
    Consultation is not something which should take place only in periods of crisis. It should be an ongoing part of the assembly's activity. All forms of business, agricultural businesses, service industries, tourism organisations and the very important manufacturing sector, should take part. Maybe the Government will tell us that the specific scheme for dealing with business is the Welsh Development Agency in its new form. I notice that the agency in its statement on the enlarged WDA, and very active and communicative chairman, David Rowe-Beddoe, emphasise that the enlarged WDA will be highly customer focused and will provide greater support to indigenous business and in particular SMEs.
    So the commitment is there from the WDA on behalf of the assembly to be a closer business partner of indigenous businesses and of SMEs in Wales and of all

    1337
    the agency's potential customers. Why can we not have that clearly stated in the clause which involves business? Why can we not have the commitment to enterprise which we know to be at the heart of this Government's policies and of the policies of all the political parties in Wales more clearly spelt out on the face of the Bill?
    Lord Stanley of Alderley: I put down a similar question concerning consultation with agriculture earlier. I got the usual "trust the assembly" answer. I hope that the noble Lord, when replying to my noble friend and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will be able to be more specific this time.
    Lord Prys-Davies: I have listened very carefully to what has been said by noble Lords and I want to refer to Amendment No. 247A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and in particular to paragraph (d). To the best of my recollection, the term "social partners" is not employed in the Bill. The word "business" is employed and "representatives of business" is a term used in Clause 115. However, the word "business" is an indefinite term. I believe that its meaning is wider than "trade". I believe it includes (a), (b) and (c) in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, but does it include a trade union?
    I am interested in a commitment to discussions with representatives of the trade unions. I have my doubts whether the man on the Rhondda omnibus would understand the term "business" to include his trade union although I have no doubt that he would wish that to be so. I do not have with me the relevant House of Commons Hansard, but I seem to recall that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Ron Davies, explained in the other place that the term is intended to include trade unions. I would support that, but I believe that the clause requires amendment to make it abundantly clear.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have a good deal of sympathy with the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said. My noble friend is quite right. The Secretary of State did give an assurance when Clause 115 was being considered in another place that consultation with business would include consultation with trade unions, and of course the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, Amendment No. 247A, together with this group, includes all four amendments spoken to and in a sense prefigures the debate on Clause 115 stand part.
    Amendment No. 247A does take the matter further by defining "business" in the way set out by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. The problem with that approach is that there is always a danger that something may be left off the list. We have tried to avoid over-prescription and to look for flexibility, but I take the noble Lord's point very much to heart, because what I have just said relates to drafting and is not about substance.
    1338
    On the substantive point made, not least by the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Prys-Davies, I see the force of the argument. If the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will withdraw his amendment I undertake to come back at Report stage with an amendment reflecting our preferred approach to drafting; there is not really an issue of substance between us. I think that ought to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
    Amendment No. 247ZA puts a new clause into the Bill. I am not sure how confident the noble Lord is about the amendment, because it jars with what is already in the Bill. Subsection (4)(c), which we discussed on the last amendment, already makes it plain that the voluntary sector scheme has obligations in respect of consultation. The partnership council could, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated, be the forum for the usual consultation on local government finance. We do not therefore think that Amendment No. 247ZA helps at all: in fact it really rather muddies the waters.
    Amendments Nos. 247ZB and 247ZC are, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out, simply intended to take out the words "such" and "as it considers appropriate". No assembly ought to be required to carry out consultation with representatives of business which it does not consider to be appropriate. If we adopt the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—as I have indicated we accept it in substance and general thrust—that ought to meet the legitimate requirements of the noble Lord.
    I would point out that Clause 66 places quite a number of duties on the assembly. There have to be various regulatory appraisals, including consultation with business, before subordinate legislation is given effect by the assembly where burdens might fall on business. So the interests of business in the field of subordinate legislation are well covered by Clause 66. If we bring forward an amendment intended to cover trade unions and similar organisations, that ought to meet the reasonable requirements of all noble Lords who have spoken.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and in particular for the last few sentences. He referred to my potential Amendment No. 247A in the context of Clause 66, which is already incorporated in the Bill.
    It might be appropriate, as the Minister ponders on fleshing out the spirit of his intention, for him again to examine Clause 66 to see where certain aspects of business consultation not spelt out in the clause might be spelt out more specifically in his redrafted amendment on Report. On that basis, I welcome his remarks.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that all of us who have taken part in the debate are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his response. Matters were lining up to be an interesting four against one. However, the noble Lord was crafty

    1339
    enough to see that a small amount of movement would be a good thing in response to four noble Lords who thought that the clause was not quite right.
    I am grateful to the Minister. Some of the parts of his answer I well recognised. I think the computer must simply slot in the usual study when somebody asks for a list. I can remember saying, too, that something might be left off it. And I remember that many noble Lords did not believe me. So perhaps I have just joined the list of those who do not believe, having come from the list of those who do believe.
    The noble Lord understands the point that we have all made about the importance of business. I was idly looking at the wording of Clauses 113, 114 and 115. Business could certainly be forgiven for feeling that it was very much thrown in as an afterthought. I know that that is not what the Government meant. I am therefore grateful, as we all are, to the noble Lord for promising to take this matter away and return to the House incorporating some of the points that have been made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 115 [Consultation with business]:
    [Amendments Nos. 247ZB to 247A not moved.]
    Clause 115 agreed to.
    Clauses 116 to 118 agreed to.
    Clause 119 [Publication and inspection of documents]:
    The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 247B:
    Page 61, line 12, leave out ("of the Assembly").
    The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 120 [Equality of opportunity]:
    On Question, Whether Clause 120 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Rather than table any amendments to this clause, I thought it as well to indicate that I was not content with the clause and to ask the Minister a few questions in relation to it. Having been chided on a number of occasions about this Parliament acting, as it were, as the "nanny" or Big Brother of the Welsh assembly and trying to include matters in the Bill which the assembly would be perfectly able to do for itself, it seemed to me that Clause 120 comes well within that category. I suppose it is included for reasons of political correctness. I cannot think of any other reason. Perhaps the noble Lord will therefore explain why the Government feel it necessary to include this clause. Is it that they do not trust the assembly to deal with these matters properly?
    As the clause stands, whose equality of opportunity are we talking about? Are we referring to those who are to be employed by the assembly, those who will be members of it; or are we looking at every part of the outside world which will have dealings with the
    1340
    assembly—agriculture, business, and so on? The clause seems rather vague. I am not sure exactly whose equality of opportunity we are addressing. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
    If the Minister means the clause to be rather narrower than merely an all-embracing motherhood and apple pie provision, perhaps he ought to come forward with an amendment narrowing down the application of the clause either to the membership of the assembly or to those who will be directly employed by it. The former will be decided by the electorate; the latter are the only people over whom the assembly has some sort of control and some sort of say. I therefore wonder what the clause means. I have the distinct impression that it was slotted in as a matter of political correctness and that it does not carry a great deal of weight. If that is the case, possibly it could be omitted and the assembly could be allowed to deal with these matters on its own. It would reduce the Bill just a little. It is fairly extensive Bill, made more extensive by amendments that have already been made.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: Here comes my golden opportunity to distance myself completely from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I have had the great privilege of trying to implement legislation involving the principle of equality in the field of language for almost six years. In that work, equality has been an important guiding principle for me, not only in relation to the organisation of the Welsh Language Board but in relation to those with whom we have sought partnerships.
    I understand this clause to mean what it says; namely, it seeks to promote real equality of opportunity for all people in Wales within the purview of the assembly. The clause is followed by a statement of the arrangements for giving effect to this principle and to how equality is to be promoted.
    That provides an opportunity for the assembly to promote nor merely linguistic equality but equality of opportunity in terms of gender. In addition, it can promote equality of opportunity in terms of what is described in UK parlance as ethnic minority communities, although I do not like that wording.
    Therefore, we are in a sense creating the opportunity in this clause to develop a form of citizenship of Wales, where all those citizens of the country and the new assembly will live under the principle of equality of opportunity for all people. That can be a very positive framework. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to motherhood and apple pie. It is not about that. It is about the basis of consensual democracy, which is equality of opportunity for all people.
    In the past we have seen some vicious debates on the lines of "linguicism" in Wales, if I may use that term, and certainly on the lines of racism. We have also seen—and there is no danger of my exciting the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, since he is not in his place—examples of sexism within Wales in all political parties and outwith political parties. This clause gives the assembly the guiding light of equality with which to work. Therefore I warmly welcome its inclusion in the

    1341
    Bill. I look forward to seeing the assembly working hard at implementing in practice the principle that is stated in this clause.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I must confess that I find the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in support of Clause 120 absolutely convincing and persuasive. It is perfectly plain that the clause has two functions. It sets out an objective from which I should not have thought one could dissent. Further, as regards "over-nannying" and not allowing the assembly to get on with things, arrangements are left entirely for the assembly.
    I revert to and echo the spirit of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. It is useful to have a particular discipline. The discipline is set down in Clause 120(2), that after every financial year, far from saying "Mom and apple pie are, by and large, a good thing conceptually", the assembly must get down to the nitty gritty of saying what arrangements have been made and how effective those arrangements were. I cannot think of a better scheme of devolved power to the assembly with an objective stated, but with the assembly, within the parameters of subsection (2), setting down its own standing orders.
    The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked: whose opportunities? Of course it would include employees and members. One would expect that as a matter of course. Perhaps I may give one illustration. If the assembly were considering an aspect of public transport, it would have to do so having regard to disabled people's capacity to benefit from those transport services. It would have to make arrangements to ensure that that aspect of policy was considered. It seems to me that it is rightly in the Bill. There is a correct balance of objective on the face of the Bill—arrangements to be on the basis of subsidiarity, as it were, to be decided by the assembly.
    I take it that the noble Lord was only probing because I am sure that these days no one would suggest that one should disagree with the principle of equality of opportunity for all people. I commend the clause.
    Clause 120 agreed to.
    5 p.m.
    Clause 121 [Sustainable development]:
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 247C:
    Page 61, line 22, leave out from ("out") to end of line 24 and insert ("how it proposes, in the exercise of its functions, to promote sustainable development.").
    The noble and learned Lord said: Members of the Committee will be aware that in February in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State introduced an amendment to the Bill which, among other things, placed a duty on the assembly to:
    "Make a scheme setting out its proposals for securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that sustainable development should be promoted".
    Those provisions are now found in Clause 121(1).
    Since then, the Government have been impressed with the arguments both from within this House during Second Reading and from other interested bodies that the provisions in the Bill relating to sustainable development should be clarified.
    Amendments Nos. 247C, 247E and 247F reflect the Government's response and, I trust, will be seen as a yet further example of this Front Bench being prepared to listen carefully to any and all proposals aimed at improving the Bill.
    Amendment No. 247E deals with subsection (1) to Clause 121 and would place a clear and direct duty on the assembly to make a scheme setting out how it proposes, in the exercise of its functions, to promote sustainable development. This is an important change and reflects the Government's strong commitment to sustainable development. The amendment to subsection (2), Amendment No. 247E, is simply to ensure that the assembly is not required to review its scheme in the year following the first election (for fairly obvious reasons already referred to by my noble friend in respect of the voluntary sector) but that it will have to do so after each succeeding ordinary election.
    Amendment No. 247F introduces a very important change which I am sure will be welcomed by the Committee. It requires the assembly to produce a report after each ordinary election after the first, giving an assessment of how effective its proposals (as set out in the scheme and implemented) have been in promoting sustainable development.
    I believe the amendments show the Government's clear commitment to sustainable development. I beg to move.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: I warmly welcome the amendments, not only on behalf of myself and the Party of Wales, but particularly on behalf of the broad environmental movement in Wales and outside. It places the assembly not only in the context of sustainable development worldwide, within the EU and the UK, but it also provides it with a specific mechanism for assessing its own performance. That is what some of us sought earlier when we emphasised the possibility of an environmental audit committee. Clearly, were the assembly to establish an environmental audit committee, that committee would be an ideal engine for assessing its effectiveness and contributing to that assessment.
    I congratulate the Government on the strong wording of the specific proposals. I am certain that they will be welcomed broadly within the environmental movement and they therefore place the assembly—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—as probably the only government institution in the United Kingdom, the only level of elected government in the United Kingdom, to have those specific objectives. No doubt that is exceptional, even in the European Union. That allows me to refer in passing to the traffic-free experience we all had in Cardiff this morning, due to the European Council.

    1343
    The new assembly may well be the first elected body in the European Union to be so strongly committed to the principle of sustainable development. It is appropriate and I congratulate the Government on taking that action.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for explaining the two amendments. I am sorry the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not here to raise the issues that concern her and, no doubt, the interests she represents. I shall refrain from asking for a definition of "sustainable development" because it comes under the same label as motherhood and apple pie and I should accept it for what it is.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: The noble Lord's government, of which he was a strong supporter and member, produced numerous tomes defining "sustainable development" in great detail under the signature of his previous leader, John Major, his previous environmental Minister, John Gummer, and so on.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps that is why I do not ask for a definition of "sustainable development", because it would take far too long. In any case, I do not believe that the previous government ever tried to put such matters in an Act of Parliament. Never mind. I am not trying to get into an argument, I simply say that it would be interesting to hear the Minister give us an explanation of "sustainable development". I do not wish to tempt him because we want to get on.
    As I read the parts of the Bill, my only observation is that I am surprised that similar obligations are not being placed on the Scottish parliament. I shall need to examine why the Welsh assembly needs all the instructions from here, whereas the Scottish parliament does not.
    Lord Moran: The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon and has asked me to move Amendments Nos. 247D and 247G in her absence. I shall be happy to do so. The noble Baroness and I welcome the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 247C, which clarifies and simplifies the sustainable development responsibilities of the assembly. At Second Reading I described the original clause on sustainable development as "opaque". This one is much better.
    Amendment No. 247D, tabled by the noble Baroness), refers to the scheme for sustainable development which the assembly will make. The amendment would achieve two things. First, it would provide a modest framework to focus discussion on the content of the scheme, including objectives monitoring the impact of policies and consultation. The National Assembly Advisory Group, in its consultation document, stressed that it would like to see the assembly's working practices having a strong focus on
    1344
    objectives and outcomes. The amendment applies the criteria to the sustainable development scheme that the assembly will produce.
    The framework for the content of the scheme is not intended in any way to pre-empt the assembly's prerogative to decide its policies on sustainable development in the context of a sustainable development scheme. It merely provides pointers for the overall shape of the scheme and will help the discussion input for a whole range of organisations in Wales which wish to contribute to the scheme, including the national conference on sustainable development which has been announced for early 1999 and which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, welcomes. It also brings the provisions for the scheme into line with the provisions for a similar scheme—that connected with relations with voluntary organisations under Clause 114—and will give some consistency to the two schemes. Overall, the amendment will build on and improve the Government's welcome Amendment No. 247C.
    Amendment No. 247G is an amendment to the Government's Amendment No. 247F. The Government's intention to introduce a process for reporting on the effectiveness of the sustainable development proposals in the scheme is to be welcomed. The issue addressed by Amendment No. 247G relates to the timing and frequency of the report on effectiveness. The Government's proposal is that the report should take place every four years in the year after each ordinary election. Four years is a long period before review and assessment of the effectiveness of a scheme, especially in the early days of a new body like the assembly which will be feeling its way in terms of sustainable development responsibilities.
    Amendment No. 247G proposes a two-year review period. That would have the benefit of avoiding the review coming immediately after an election with little opportunity for the assembly which set the scheme to learn from its operation. A new assembly, reviewing the scheme immediately after an election, would risk having less ownership of the scheme and less likelihood therefore of an interest in whether or not the scheme had succeeded.
    Sustainable development will not be achieved overnight, but a lot can happen in two years. It will be sad if we are four years down the line before we know that some of the policies for sustainable development are not effective.
    Clause 120 on equality of opportunity contains provisions for annual assessment of the effectiveness of the assembly's arrangement. There is therefore a precedent.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful that all Members of the Committee who spoke in the debate welcomed the provisions of the amendment proposed by the Government in relation to sustainable development. Perhaps I can begin by dealing with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone who could not be here today.

    1345
    The amendment proposes, first, that particulars be prescribed for the assembly in relation to what it must put into its scheme and, instead of producing a report every four years after an ordinary election, it is said that there should be a report every two years.
    In relation to the greater prescription, the government amendment requires the assembly to set out how it proposes to promote sustainable development. It is a clear, utterly straightforward obligation. As has been made clear to the Committee, we on this side of the Chamber believe that the assembly must be left with a discretion to determine for itself how it will deal with a range of matters relating to the exercise of its functions, including setting forward its scheme in relation to sustainable development.
    While we recognise the sincerity with which the amendment was tabled, we believe that our amendment, with its straightforwardness and clarity, is better. In relation to the proposal that a report be prepared every two years, we believe again that our amendment strikes the right balance.
    Sustainable development is not about a quick fix. This Government have a broad agenda for sustainable development, encompassing a range of economic, social and environmental objectives. We would expect the assembly to take forward that agenda in Wales. But inevitably sustainable development must look to the long-term future and many of its measures may not be capable of short-term assessment. Having an assessment after each ordinary election would be more appropriate in that it allows time for the assembly's proposals to be adopted and for their effectiveness to be assessed. In that context we consider four years to be more appropriate than two years.
    Lord Moran: On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, let me say that I am grateful to the Minister, though I am a little disappointed. The amendment did not seek to prescribe, so much as to focus on the principal concerns involved and therefore to speed up the process of working out a proper scheme for sustainable development. However, I understand what the Minister says. I hope that the four-year period will work out. But I fear that, coming immediately after an election, it may not be the best way of reporting. That said, I do not intend to press the amendments.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 247D not moved.]
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 247E:
    Page 61, line 26, after ("election") insert ("(after the first)").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 247F:
    Page 61, line 38, at end insert—
    1346
    ("( ) In the year following each ordinary election (after the first) the Assembly shall publish a report containing an assessment of how effective its proposals (as set out in the scheme and implemented) have been in promoting sustainable development.").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
    [Amendment No. 247G, as an amendment to Amendment No. 247F, not moved.]
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 122 to 124 agreed to.
    Clause 125 [Stamp Duty]:
    On Question, Whether Clause 125 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My purpose in opposing that this clause stand part is that the provisions relating to stamp duty and the assembly would be best placed in Schedule 9 to the Bill. With the Committee's agreement, this change will be effected by Amendment No. 254 which I will move in our proceedings later today.
    Clause 125 negatived.
    Clause 126 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 248:
    Page 62, line 21, leave out ("the Assembly") and insert ("Parts I to IV and this Part").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments about Assembly]:
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 249:
    Page 98, line 40, at end insert—
    ("The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)
    . The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 has effect subject to the following amendments.
    . In section 3(2) (performance of functions of Parliamentary Commissioner by officers of his or of a Health Service Commissioner), for the words "or may be performed" onwards substitute ", by any member of the staff so authorised of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales or by any officer so authorised of the Health Service Commissioner for England or of the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland."
    . In section 4 (departments etc. subject to investigation), after subsection (3) insert—
    "(3A) No entry shall be made if the result of making it would be that the Parliamentary Commissioner could investigate action which can be investigated by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman under Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman) to the Government of Wales Act 1998."
    . In section 11(2A) (disclosure of information between Parliamentary Commissioner and a Health Service Commissioner)—

    (a) after "office as" insert "Welsh Administration Ombudsman or", and

    1347

    (b) for "such a Commissioner" substitute "Welsh Administration Ombudsman or a Health Service Commissioner".

    .—(1) Section 11A (consultations between Parliamentary Commissioner and Health Service Commissioners) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1) (duty of consultation)—

    (a) after "jurisdiction of" insert "the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or of",

    (b) for "office as that Commissioner" substitute "the office concerned", and

    (c) after "a complaint under" insert "the Government of Wales Act 1998 or".

    (3) In subsection (2) (matters which may be covered by consultation), after "with the" insert "Welsh Administration Ombudsman or a".
    (4) In the sidenote, after "and" insert "Welsh Administration Ombudsman or".
    . In Schedule 2 (departments etc. subject to investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner)—

    (a) in note 1A, insert at the end "; and no investigation under this Act shall be conducted in respect of any action in connection with functions of the Environment Agency in relation to Wales (or an area of the sea adjoining either the coast of Wales or an area of the sea forming part of Wales).", and

    (b) after that note insert—

    "1B. In the case of the Forestry Commission no investigation under this Act shall be conducted in respect of any action in connection with functions of the Forestry Commissioners in relation to Wales."").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 249A:
    Page 98, line 42, leave out from ("In") to ("A") in line 2 on page 99 and insert ("Part II of Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (official pensions), before paragraph 39 insert—
    "National Assembly for Wales
    38B.").
    The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 249A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 250A, 254, 256 and 258.
    The amendments proposed by the Government to Schedule 9 are technical matters which should not detain us too long.
    "Official pensions" within the meaning of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 are subject to periodic review and uprating. The purpose of Amendment No. 249A is simply to insert into that Act reference to pensions paid by the assembly to its former members, so that they are "official pensions" and the periodic review and uprating machinery bite on them. An equivalent provision is to be made in the Scotland Bill.
    Amendment No. 250A would allow the Auditor General for Wales to be excused from jury service under Part III, Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974. That is currently the case with respect to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Amendments Nos. 254 and 258 are technical changes. The stamp duty provisions simply replicate what had been Clause 125. This ensures that the assembly is exempt from stamp duty in relation to a conveyance, transfer or lease. Amendment No. 258 extends the definition of "government department" in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to include the assembly, thus enabling, among other things, the assembly to be able to reclaim VAT as government departments can.
    Finally, Amendment No. 256 amends the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 so that the definition of "Minister" for the purposes of that Act includes the assembly. One of the reasons for this is to ensure that where the assembly makes procedural rules of tribunals it will be required to consult the Council on Tribunals. That does no more than ensure consistency on both sides of Offa's Dyke. I beg to move.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 249A. This seeks to ensure consistency in all the nations of the kingdom. The amendment would enable the national assembly to arrange by subordinate legislation for the variance of national holidays. There was such a power, as no doubt the Minister will tell me, in the Wales Act 1978. There is a similar power for the Scottish parliament and there is a power for Northern Ireland. I now find, from reading the Western Mail this morning, that the amendment is completely and entirely supported by the Conservative Party. Mr. Michael Settle, under the banner headline "Tories call for St David's Day holiday", writes:
    "The Welsh Conservatives are to put at the head of their Assembly elections campaign a commitment to fight to make St David's Day a national holiday in Wales".
    The report goes on, and I am sure that it is accurate:
    "The campaign for St David's Day to be made a national holiday in Wales appears to be part of a drive within the Welsh Tory Party to help make it a distinctively Welsh party in the eyes of the public in Wales, many of whom have to date regarded the Conservatives as a party of England".
    So I look forward to the support of the party opposite for my amendment.
    Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right. I was there on Saturday at Llangollen to hear this impassioned speech calling for St. David's Day to be a national holiday in Wales, as would befit our Saint's day. But I am bound to warn the noble Lord that St. David's Day was recommended as a public holiday in Wales in place of the May Day holiday, for which we can find no justification.
    Viscount St. Davids: To add to the list of days which perhaps we should celebrate, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has not suggested 18th September.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: As St. Ron's day!
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Lord indicated, Amendment No. 249B would confer a power to enable the assembly to alter Bank Holidays as they apply to Wales as well as to declare other days as bank

    1349
    holidays in Wales. One effect of the amendment would be to allow the assembly to declare St. David's Day as a bank holiday in Wales. While I recognise that the amendment does not require St. David's Day to be a bank holiday, I suggest to the Committee that we need to consider carefully the wider implications associated with the amendment. Having different bank holidays in Wales and England would not be cost-free for business. The economies of Wales and England are deeply intertwined.
    The Government's general policy has been clear. It is to transfer to the assembly the powers currently exercisable by the Secretary of State for Wales. Those do not include powers relating to bank holidays. If the national assembly had views on this issue, it could, of course, debate it and make representations. But we do not agree that the current legislative arrangements for settling bank holidays should be changed.
    Lord Simon of Glaisdale: If the noble and learned Lord will allow me, surely the transfer from the Secretary of State to the assembly of the powers that are at present exercised is not exclusive. I certainly understood that other powers are to be transferred.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will have to check this, but I think that there are other powers apart from those exercisable by the Secretary of State.
    Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may say that I am awaiting an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I said that there was no urgency about it provided I received it before the Report stage. So I am not in any way implying that the noble and learned Lord is to blame.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I did not take it that the noble and learned Lord was. Whatever the specific powers under the Bill, I think the Government's general policy has repeatedly been made clear; namely, it is in general to transfer to the assembly the powers currently exercisable by the Secretary of State for Wales. Whatever the precise detail of the Bill may say in relation to wider powers, the right to determine how many bank holidays there are and when they are is not one of the powers of the Secretary of State. Therefore, it would be contrary to the general policy to give him those powers.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, and at the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, he seemed to argue that it would not make good economic sense to have different bank holidays in England and Wales. There are already different bank holidays between Scotland and England and the two economies are fairly closely intertwined, especially in the financial sector. We Scots think that we need another bank holiday on 2nd January, for reasons that I shall not go into, and I notice, looking at my diary, that in Northern Ireland there is a bank holiday—I presume it is a bank holiday—on 12th July, for reasons which are totally obscure to me. But that must
    1350
    be different from the rest of the UK. Therefore, I do not think it is a terribly good argument to make to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that somehow or other our economies are so intertwined that one cannot conceive of bank holidays on different days.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Speaking as a Scot myself, I am fully aware of the reasons why 2nd January is an additional bank holiday in Scotland. However, I cannot speak for Wales in relation to when and whether it might need separate bank holidays. I believe I have gone through the reasons why we cannot accept the amendment and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
    Lord Monson: I am very disappointed and surprised by the Government's reply. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, not because I live in Wales—I do not—but because I live in an overcrowded United Kingdom as well as being a believer in diversity and common sense. National bank holidays, which are usually fixed for what are statistically the coldest and wettest Mondays in Spring and Summer, are a recipe for overcrowded roads, overcrowded resorts and overcharging. The more bank holidays are diversified to spread the load, so to speak, the better it will be for people throughout the United Kingdom.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: I am deeply disappointed on behalf of St. David and also on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who is his representative on earth, no doubt, in this Chamber, that the Government are not prepared to be more flexible on this matter. However, I do look forward to reading the Conservative manifesto on the assembly when they will be nailing their colours to the mast, their colours being of course the flag of St. David—the black background and the yellow cross. I look forward to withdrawing my amendment in order to support at least one part of the Conservative programme for the national assembly—probably the only one.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 249B not moved.]
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 250:
    Page 99, line 3, at end insert—
    ("The Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
    . The Local Government Act 1974 has effect subject to the following amendments.
    .—(1) Section 23 (the Commissions for Local Administration) is amended as follows.
    (2) After subsection (2) insert—
    "(2A) The Welsh Administration Ombudsman shall be a member of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales (so that, where the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner and Welsh Administration Ombudsman are held by different persons, the Commission for Local Administration in Wales shall consist of at least three commissioners)."
    (3) In subsection (3) (meaning of "Local Commissioner"), after "other than the Parliamentary Commissioner" insert ", the Welsh Administration Ombudsman".
    (4) In subsection (12) (reports by the Commissions), after "government departments" insert "or the National Assembly for Wales".
    . In section 26(6)(b) (no investigation where person aggrieved has right of appeal to Minister of the Crown), after "Minister of the Crown" insert "or the National Assembly for Wales".
    . In section 27(1) (authorities not entitled to make a complaint)—

    (a) in paragraph (a), after "government" insert "(including the National Assembly for Wales)", and

    (b) in paragraph (b), after "department" insert "or by the National Assembly for Wales" and after "Parliament" insert "or the National Assembly for Wales".

    .—(1) Section 29 (provisions about investigations) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (3) (disclosure to Local Commissioner of communications between local authorities and government departments), after "any Government department" insert "or the National Assembly for Wales".
    (3) In subsection (5) (section does not affect restrictions on disclosure of information), before "or" at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
    "(aa) the restriction, imposed by paragraph 24(1) of Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman) to the Government of Wales Act 1998, on the disclosure of information by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman or members of his staff;".
    . In section 32(5) (inclusion in Local Commissioner's report of information derived from government communications disclosed under section 29(3))—

    (a) after "department", in the first place, insert "or the National Assembly for Wales",

    (b) after "department", in the second place, insert "or a member of the Assembly's staff', and

    (c) after "department", in the third place, insert "or the Assembly".

    .—(1) Section 33 (consultation with other Commissioners) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (1) (duty to consult), before "or" at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
    "(aa) by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, in accordance with the Government of Wales Act 1998,",.
    and, in the words following paragraph (b), after "Commissioner" insert "or the Ombudsman" and after "under the Act of 1967" insert ", under the Government of Wales Act 1998".
    (3) In subsection (2) (matters which may be covered by consultation)—

    (a) after "the Parliamentary Commissioner" insert ", the Welsh Administration Ombudsman", and

    (b) after "that Commissioner" insert "or the Ombudsman".

    (4) In subsection (5) (confidentiality)—

    (a) after "Act of 1993," insert "in paragraph 24(1) of Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman) to the Government of Wales Act 1998", and

    (b) omit "by any of the Commissioners mentioned in this section, or by any of their officers,".").

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 250A:
    Page 99, line 8, at end insert—
    ("The Auditor General for Wales."").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 251:
    Page 99, line 13, at end insert (", and
    "Welsh Administration Ombudsman."").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 252 and 253:
    Page 99, line 20, at end insert—
    ("The Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)
    . The Mental Health Act 1983 has effect subject to the following amendment.
    . In section 134(3)(c) (no power to withhold correspondence between patients and ombudsmen), after "Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration," insert "the Welsh Administration Ombudsman,".").
    Page 99, line 20, at end insert—
    ("The Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)
    . In section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (members of House of Commons suffering from mental illness), at the end insert—
    "(9) This section also has effect in relation to members of the National Assembly for Wales but as if—

    (a) references to the House of Commons were to the Assembly and references to the Speaker were to the presiding officer, and

    (b) in subsection (7), for "defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament" there were substituted "paid by the National Assembly for Wales"."

    The Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)
    . In section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (members of House of Commons adjudged bankrupt etc.), before subsection (7) insert—
    "(6B) Subsections (4) to (6) have effect in relation to a member of the National Assembly for Wales but as if—

    (a) references to the House of Commons were to the Assembly and references to the Speaker were to the presiding officer, and

    (b) in subsection (4), for "under this section" there were substituted "under section 12(2) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 by virtue of this section"."").

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 254:
    Page 99, line 20, at end insert—
    ("The Finance Act 1987 (c. 16)
    . In section 55(1) of the Finance Act 1987 (Crown exemption from stamp duty), after "Her Majesty's Treasury," insert "or to the National Assembly for Wales,".").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 254A:
    Page 99, line 38, at end insert—
    ("The Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6)
    . In section 12(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 (which defines a "government contractor" as including a person who provides goods or services for the purposes of a Minister), before "or" at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
    "(aa) for the purposes of the National Assembly for Wales;".").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 255:
    Page 99, line 38, at end insert—
    ("The Finance Act 1989 (c.26)
    .—(1) Section 182 of the Finance Act 1989 (restrictions on disclosure of information about taxpayers) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (4)(a) (offence for Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and others to disclose information about taxpayers), after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—

    "(iii) of the Auditor General for Wales and any member of his staff, or

    (iv) of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and any member of his staff,".

    (3) In subsection (6) (authorised disclosures), in the words after paragraph (e), for "or the Parliamentary Commissioner," substitute ", the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Auditor General for Wales or the Welsh Administration Ombudsman,".
    The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
    . In section 123(8) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (auditors and investigators of complaints who may not disclose social security information)—

    (a) after paragraph (b) insert—

    "(ba) the Auditor General for Wales and any member of his staff;", and.

    (b) after paragraph (hc) insert—

    "(hd) the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and any member of his staff;".").

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 256:
    Page 99, line 38, at end insert—
    ("The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c.53)
    . In section 16(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (interpretation), in the definition of "Minister", after "includes" insert "the National Assembly for Wales and".").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 257 to 259:
    Page 100, leave out lines 3 to 28.
    Page 100, line 28, at end insert—
    ("The Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c.23)
    . In section 41(6) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (meaning of government department), before "a Northern Ireland department," insert ", the National Assembly for Wales,".").
    Page 100, line 28, at end insert—
    ("The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c.40)
    . In section 79(1) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (interpretation of Part II), in the definition of "office-holder"—

    (a) after "officer of either House of Parliament," insert "the Auditor General for Wales," and

    (b) after "the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration" insert ", the Welsh Administration Ombudsman".").

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 127 [Extension of functions]:
    Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 259A:
    Page 62, line 29, at end insert—
    ("( ) for "may" substitute "shall",").
    The noble Lord said: The purpose of this group of amendments is to strengthen the commitment of the Welsh Development Agency to sustainable development. No doubt the Government will argue that in view of our earlier debates these particular amendments are redundant. However, I wish to emphasise that the wording of my Amendment No. 259B is,
    "to promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in the full range of its activities"
    which relate to the WDA. It is drawn from the constitution and mission statement of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Because it is part of that bank's activities, I am certain that it should be similarly acceptable to the WDA. I now see that in the objectives and principles of the enlarged WDA, which the chairman, David Rowe-Beddowe, so kindly sent us, it is now committed to deliver a more strategic approach to sustainable development. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that my amendments are not only acceptable, but they would enhance the WDA in pursuing these objectives. I beg to move.
    Lord Roberts of Conwy: We have not as yet had the opportunity to discuss the new Welsh Development Agency. The amendments that have just been spoken to would seem to be offering as good an opportunity as we are likely to get either with the next set of amendments or on clause stand part.
    We are grateful for the assurance that we have had from the chairman of the existing Welsh Development Agency that sustainable development is close to its heart. As he is also the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales, I am sure that the commitment extends to that board also. The new development agency, with its all-Wales brief, was in a sense anticipated when the chairman of the WDA was asked to take over the chairmanship of the Development Board for Rural Wales and to bring the two bodies closer together. That he has done and I believe that Wales owes a debt of gratitude to the chairman, Mr. David Rowe-Beddowe, not just for this achievement but for other improvements that he has brought to the successful working of these two organisations in all the spheres in which they are involved.

    1355
    There is no doubt that mid-Wales, which was the area primarily covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales, had very special problems and suffered from the constant haemorrhage of de-population for many years. That was as attributable to social conditions as to economic conditions. That is why the Development Board for Rural Wales had a social as well as an economic remit which turned out to be useful to the Government in Wales as a whole. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Bill adds social development to the new WDA's remit. It is part of its inheritance from the Development Board for Rural Wales which is to be merged with the new body. Many will regret the passing of the Development Board for Rural Wales. It has served mid-Wales well. Unemployment rates remained comparatively low in mid-Wales towns at times of recession when they were high elsewhere.
    The Welsh Development Agency has always had a rural remit outside the area of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the industrial areas of south and north-east Wales. It actively pursued improvement schemes of benefit to tourist areas and the general environment. But that work was inevitably overshadowed in the public mind by the agency's success in attracting inward investment and by its massive effort in the land reclamation field. At one stage it had the largest reclamation programme of its kind in Europe. That work is now drawing to an end and it makes sense to combine the land authority for Wales with the WDA because both have similar and complementary expertise in restoring land to commercial use.
    There is another change in this Bill to the remit of the WDA and that is the change of function from promoting industrial efficiency to promoting efficiency in business. I am sure that there is more to the change than meets the eye. I shall be grateful if the Minister can spell that out in his reply. Does it mean that the agency is not confined to assisting industrial and manufacturing businesses and, if so, is it anticipated that there might be a matching change in industrial development grants—in other words, that the scope for such grants might be widened?
    Incidentally, what is to happen to the industry department of the Welsh Office which managed the award of grants? I note that the amendment also refers to exports from Wales and proposes that the new agency should take part in their promotion. In fact, there is a special department or section of the Welsh Office which already promotes exports by small and medium-sized companies.
    The new agency will be very large indeed, not only in size but in its scope. I am sure that that will create problems. The agency has already divided itself on a regional and functional basis and it appears to be ready to manage its new tasks.
    However, one is bound to utter a word or two of warning. I doubt whether in future we can expect the same strong flow of inward investment as we have experienced in the past—and for a variety of reasons: Far Eastern sources of investment are not as buoyant as
    1356
    they were and other markets are opening up, notably in Eastern Europe, which may tempt manufacturing investors to establish themselves there rather than here. Of course, one would like to see more inward investors going to the west of Wales, but ultimately the decision is theirs. Proximity to the strategic road network and an ample supply of appropriate labour are important to such investors. The western-most parts of Wales are not always well endowed in those respects.
    As the amendments under discussion, and others, indicate, there will be many demands placed upon the new Welsh Development Agency, and high expectations of it. However, we must never forget that its main function is to further the development of the Welsh economy and to promote business so that our people have work and can prosper. There must not be too many distractions from those key tasks. I am sure that we are right to emphasise that, especially as we face an enormous problem in the agricultural industry, upon which rural life is so dependent. Who knows, we may well face problems in the industrial areas also in the not-too-distant future. Therefore, I say once again that the development agency must concentrate on its main task, which is the economic development of Wales.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think that anybody underestimates the importance of the Welsh Development Agency or its increasing importance once the assembly is up and running. In our amendments to its purposes, we seek only to focus on that.
    Amendment No. 259A seems to be an attempt to strengthen the legislative requirement upon the WDA to exercise its functions in pursuance of the purposes listed in Section 1(2) of the Welsh Development Agency Act. If that is the intention, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that it is unnecessary, since the legislation already provides that the WDA can exercise its functions only for the purposes set out in that Act.
    Acceptance of the first amendment in this group would have a material effect on the modus operandi of the agency, which could be to the detriment of Wales. The substitution of "shall" for "may" in Section 1(2) of the Welsh Development Agency Act would place a statutory duty upon the agency to ensure that each function it exercised satisfied each and every one of the purposes listed in that section. That would surely place an unrealistic limitation upon the activities of the agency and deny it the competence to deliver the kind of all-Wales economic, social and environmental development that the Government have promised.
    The Government have already demonstrated their commitment to placing the environment at the heart of policy-making for Wales. As we have already discussed, the national assembly will itself be required to prepare a scheme setting out how sustainable development will be achieved in Wales: whether by itself or via the public bodies, including the WDA, which it will fund and direct.
    The WDA already has as a purpose the improvement of the environment in Wales and as a function the development and redevelopment of the environment. In addition, it has the function of improving the appearance

    1357
    of derelict land. I would assert that the agency's own legislation, together with the relationship it will have with the assembly, will more than adequately provide for it to have a view to sustainable development in its activities and to be able to account for its activities in this area. The Government's view is therefore that Amendment No. 259B is unnecessary.
    With respect to Amendment No. 259C, the Bill clearly establishes the powers of the agency to play a full and effective role in economic and social development in all parts of Wales by transferring to it the social development powers of the Development Board for Rural Wales. Obviously, the way in which these powers are exercised will be subject to the wishes and guidance of the assembly, but I submit to the noble Lord that they would substantially achieve his objectives without the need for Amendment No. 259C.
    Amendment No. 259D would make it a function of the agency to promote exports from Wales. It is an existing purpose of the agency to promote efficiency in business and international competitiveness in Wales, and the agency has an existing function to,
    "promote or assist the establishment, growth, modernisation or development of',
    businesses. At the moment, the Welsh Office is the main provider in Wales of export services and advice. Other bodies, such as the chambers of commerce, the training and enterprise councils and the Mid Wales Export Association, have, together with the WDA, been engaged with the Welsh Office in a review of how export services for small and medium enterprises in Wales might be better co-ordinated. In time, the assembly might wish to make its own arrangements for the provision of export services, but at the moment the agency is fully empowered to participate in the provision of export services.
    The Bill as drafted preserves the wide-ranging permissive powers that the agency has. Control over which of the powers are exercised, and how they are exercised, must rest firmly in the hands of the assembly. Only in that way can we deliver the democratic accountability of public bodies that is fundamental to better government in Wales.
    I appreciate that these amendments may largely be an attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to probe the future powers and role of the WDA. I hope that my answers indicate that we are in considerable sympathy with many of his aims.
    Before concluding, perhaps I may deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, which was: why change the duty on the Welsh Development Agency from one with respect to "industry" to one with respect to "business"? There is nothing sinister in this. We believe that the word "business" better reflects the diverse nature of the modern Welsh economy. The change will not affect the range of powers available to the Welsh Development Agency.
    I hope that I have given the noble Lords satisfactory assurances in each case and I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to withdraw the amendment.
    5.45 p.m.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for reminding us of the activities not only of the WDA but also of the Development Board for Rural Wales, from the work of which I benefited greatly when I was the Member of Parliament for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. As we see the DBRW being wound up and incorporated into a strengthened WDA, I pay tribute to all who have been associated with it.
    I am particularly grateful for the assurances about the review of export services. We need to consider the current function of the Welsh Office in this regard and whether that function would be better placed with the agency, as proposed in my amendment or whether other arrangements might be established in due course. I welcome the comments about the review.
    Finally, I should have declared an interest as the part-time chairman of Sgrin, which is in receipt of funding from the WDA as part of its media development work. We shall be looking to the WDA to be an even more flexible and an even stronger body in the future in relation to the assembly than it has been in the past. We shall all be concerned about the role of the agency and its ability to function as flexibly as is required by the changing economic circumstances of all regions of Wales.
    I wish the agency well, together with all its staff who—it is important to record this—have gone through a rapid and difficult reorganisation while maintaining the morale and effectiveness of the agency's service delivery. Without naming names, I pay tribute to all who have been responsible for ensuring that. Following the specific assurances that I have received, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 259B to 260 not moved.]
    Clause 127 agreed to.
    Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 260A:
    After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—
    REPORT BY AGENCY TO ASSEMBLY
    (" . At the end of each financial year, the Welsh Development Agency shall provide a report to the Assembly containing information on—

    (a) the geographical distribution of its expenditure in different parts of Wales,

    (b) the arrangements it has made to assist the Assembly in carrying out its responsibilities under section 120, and

    (c) the arrangements it has made to assist the Assembly in carrying out its responsibilities under section 121.").

    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 260A seeks to strengthen the reporting arrangements between the assembly and the development agency and the method by which the agency reports to the assembly. In particular, the amendment is related to the activity of the agency in promoting equality of opportunity and sustainable development. I hope that the Government will be able to assure me that it is their intention under the Bill that the agency should clearly operate to those objectives. I was pleased to note in that context—I refer

    1359
    in particular to paragraph (a) which refers to the geographical distribution of expenditure in different parts of Wales—that among the quoted objectives and principles of the enlarged WDA the building of strong regions is a very important aspect.
    I do not know whether the Government are yet in a position to indicate that they now accept the argument that the regional committee structure of the assembly discussed earlier in Committee will approximate to the regions of the development agency. That would provide an opportunity for direct reporting as between the regions of Wales or the regional committees of the assembly and the work of the agency. It would be even more helpful if the Government could provide that reassurance at this stage.
    Therefore, the intention of this amendment is to strengthen the link between the agency and the assembly and ensure that that happens by means of a formal reporting mechanism. The last thing that we want—I say this before the Front Bench opposite does so—is day-to-day political interference in the work of the agency by assembly members. We want to have the setting of broad objectives and the strengthening of reporting and accountability which have generally functioned well in the past, although not always. I beg to move.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I understand the purpose of this amendment which seeks to insert a new clause, it is to provide that the Welsh Development Agency in its report should deal with certain specified pieces of information, including the geographical distribution of its expenditure in different parts of Wales and the arrangements that it has made to assist the assembly in carrying out its responsibilities under Clauses 120 and 121. Clause 120 relates to sustainable development and Clause 121 is concerned with equality of opportunity.
    I sympathise with the close concern shown by the noble Lord in these matters. Although I cannot go all the way with him, I believe that he is pushing at an open door. Schedule 3 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 requires the agency to report annually on its activities to the Secretary of State. In addition, the agency is required by paragraph 8(5) of that schedule to provide the Secretary of State with such information relating to its activities or proposed activities as he may from time to time require.
    After its establishment the agency will report to the assembly. The assembly will have the same powers as the Secretary of State. The assembly will no doubt closely review the operation of the WDA on an annual basis. We have recently debated Clauses 120 and 121 of the Bill which impose duties on the assembly with regard to sustainable development and equal opportunities. The assembly will in turn determine the role of those public bodies it will fund and direct in discharging its duties under those clauses. That could readily include a requirement on the WDA to report on the matters indicated in this amendment. The assembly will have power to ask for the specific information that the noble Lord wishes to be included in the clause.
    1360
    Under the powers in the 1975 Act it could also require the agency to provide a geographical breakdown of its activities. Therefore, the assembly can make the demands that the noble Lord wishes it to make, but it is not for the Bill to prescribe it but for the assembly to decide. We believe that in neither case is there a need for further provisions in this Bill. I appreciate that once again the noble Lord by this amendment seeks to probe. I hope that I have reassured him sufficiently for him not to seek to press these matters further.
    Lord Elis-Thomas: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reassurance which, together with his earlier reassurance in the context of this debate, enables me to signal quite clearly that the Welsh Development Agency will have a key role in carrying out these objectives. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 128 agreed to.
    Schedule 10 [Welsh Development Agency: land provisions]:
    Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 260B:
    Page 104, line 14, after ("is") insert ("a public right of way, or is").
    The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 260B and speak also to Amendment No. 260C which is grouped with it. The issues raised by these amendments, and by Amendments Nos. 261A and 262ZA to which I shall refer later, were drawn to my attention by the Open Spaces Society. A week or so ago that body was preparing amendments for the Regional Development Agencies Bill. It was as a result of its research in relation to that Bill that the society recognised certain deficiencies in this Bill. I am grateful to that society for bringing these matters to my attention so that I am able to raise them today.
    The Open Spaces Society is concerned with the protection and enhancement of commons, public spaces and public rights of way in both town and countryside. These amendments reflect that concern. They intend to clarify or safeguard points of doubt. I accept that more expert drafting than mine may be desirable, but at this stage these are intended to be probing amendments. I hope that at Report stage the Government will be prepared to use them as a basis for their own amendments. I am also aware that the Government have had good prior notice of these amendments. The Open Spaces Society very properly sent on 1st June a copy of the amendments and its arguments to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
    Amendment No. 260B attempts to remove an ambiguity in the Bill. Neither the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 nor this Bill appears to contain special provisions for the extinguishment or diversion of highways or public rights of way. It is assumed that the agency must rely on the normal provisions of the Highways Act 1980 or the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If that is the case it is desirable that it should be made unambiguous, because the standard procedures ensure that certain voluntary bodies are, in the appropriate regulations, given the right to be notified

    1361
    of any such proposals to enable them to make representations. I understand that the relevant bodies covering Wales are: the Auto-Cycle Union, British Horse Society, Byways and Bridleways Trust, Cyclists' Touring Club, Open Spaces Society, Ramblers' Association and Welsh Trail Riders' Association.
    I speak now to Amendment No. 260C which is grouped with this amendment. This amendment also refers to the operation of Schedule 10. Schedule 10 inserts a new Section 21A into the 1975 Act and subsection (2)(b) of that enables the Welsh Development Agency to acquire land to be given in exchange for land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment, but it does not compel such an exchange. Section 19(1) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 requires the Secretary of State to certify, for compulsory purchases, that except in minor cases he is satisfied that there will be given in exchange for such land other land not less in area and equally advantageous to the public and commoners, or that the land is being acquired to secure its preservation or improve its management. If the Secretary of State is unable so to certify, the order must be subject to special parliamentary procedure and approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is important that these provisions apply if the agency is able to acquire open space and other such land by agreement. I hope that these will be viewed in the manner in which they are intended—as helpful amendments. I beg to move.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments are offered. The amendments seek to ascertain the position in relation to public rights of way and open spaces. I do not believe that either amendment is necessary. I deal first with Amendment No. 260B. That amendment is intended to protect public rights of way. The protection sought by the noble Baroness is already provided by other legislation, in particular the Highways Acts.
    The provisions of the new Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 are intended to provide the agency with the identical powers which for the past two decades have been enjoyed by the Land Authority for Wales without any question of abuse arising from the use of such powers. It is entirely consistent with the Government's intention to create the "new" WDA that the agency inherit these powers. I would reassure the noble Baroness that the agency would not seek to make use of its compulsory purchase powers were an alternative solution available. Indeed, the Act provides that any parties suffering loss as a result of the extinguishment of a public right of way will be entitled to compensation by the agency.
    I hope that in the light of those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel satisfied in relation to the issue of public rights of way to which Amendment No. 260B relates.
    Amendment No. 260C relates to the provision that land acquired by the agency must be used in accordance with planning permission where that land forms part of a common, open space or a fuel or field garden allotment. For perhaps understandable reasons, the noble Baroness is seeking to single out the Welsh
    1362
    Development Agency for particularly stringent treatment here, since her amendment would require the agency to comply with Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 whether or not the land in question had been acquired compulsorily. As matters stand presently, only land acquired compulsorily is subject to Section 19 of the 1981 Act. Where common land is acquired compulsorily by the agency, the provisions of Section 19 will automatically apply, and will continue to apply.
    To extend Section 19, as is proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment, to land acquired by agreement would inhibit the freedom of a landowner to sell land for development which would accord with the needs identified in the adopted local plan. It would be inappropriate to extend to land sold by agreement the legislation which applies only to compulsory purchase. This is no disrespect to the noble Baroness, but she has given no reasons why this extension of the law should be applied. In view of that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
    Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may speak to a government amendment in this group, Amendment No. 261. It is of a technical nature relating to the Welsh Development Agency's compulsory acquisition powers.
    As currently drafted, paragraph 16 of Schedule 10 provides that the security of tenure provisions in the Rent Act 1977 shall not prevent the agency from acquiring a house under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and the Housing Act 1988 also provide for security of tenure and the amendment proposes that that security should not prevent the agency from obtaining possession of the property. However, the amendment does not affect rights to compensation which exist under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Finally, the amendment ensures consistency with the Regional Development Agencies Bill. At an appropriate moment I shall formally move the amendment.
    6 p.m.
    Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the assurances he gave on public rights of way. On first hearing, I believe that they meet my objection. I shall read Hansard carefully on the matter. With regard to acquisition of land by agreement and the points he puts regarding Amendment No. 260C, I shall not move that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 260C not moved.]
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 261:
    Page 110, line 38, leave out ("Act 1977") and insert (" (Agriculture) Act 1976, the Rent Act 1977 or the Housing Act 1988").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 129 agreed to.
    Schedule 11 [Welsh Development Agency: other amendments]:
    Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 261A:
    Page 113, line 10, at end insert—
    ("(1A) In subsection (4) (duty of Agency to have regard to requirements of agriculture and efficient land management), after "regard to" insert—

    "(a) the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna, and geological or physiological features of special interest;

    (b) the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological or historic interest and enabling the public to visit and inspect them:

    (c) any effect proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of any urban or rural area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings, sites or objects; and

    (d)".").

    The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I speak also to Amendment No. 262ZA which is grouped with it. These are in the nature of probing amendments.
    Amendment No. 261 A inserts a new subsection into Schedule 11 in order to strengthen the recognition of the importance of the environment. In a number of Acts in recent years, bodies which have been given statutory powers have also been required to think positively about conservation. The Open Spaces Society tells me it appreciates that Sections 1(2)(d) and (3)(h) and (i) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 already recognise the importance of the environment, but it is considered that they need strengthening. The proposed amendment is a simplified version of Section 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991. It has been put in Section 1(4) before the existing reference to agriculture for ease of drafting, not to imply an order of importance. As the Committee will appreciate, I would not undertake to table amendments which undermine the importance of agriculture. I believe that the amendment would not do so.
    Amendment No. 262ZA amends the list of definitions of those activities which may be included within the definition of "business" in Schedule 11, paragraph 10(2). It adds the term "recreational" to the list in order to make it clear that the word "business" may include a recreational activity, perhaps that organised by a charity. I beg to move.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 261A seeks to make it a duty of the agency to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of the flora and fauna of Wales, as well as to have regard to the protection and conservation of buildings and sites of archaeological or historic interest.
    I am sure the Committee is aware of the sterling work which the Countryside Council for Wales already does with respect to protecting the Welsh natural environment, and that of Cadw in preserving ancient and historical monuments in Wales. I trust that the noble Baroness does not suggest abolishing these bodies or duplicating their functions by placing these further duties on the WDA.
    1364
    If the noble Baroness is concerned that the WDA's economic development work might damage the natural environment or built heritage of Wales, I am happy to set her mind at rest. The WDA is, and will remain, fully subject to environmental and planning law, including that relating to the preservation of sensitive environmental sites and historic building. Furthermore, it will be open to the assembly, in directing the WDA, to ensure that it operates in a way which is sensitive to these issues while not jeopardising its key task of regenerating the Welsh economy.
    The noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 262ZA, seeks to include "recreational activities" among those included in the definition of "business" in the WDA Act. I had rather misunderstood the basis of the noble Baroness's amendment. I had thought that the concern was primarily for the tourism and leisure industry in Wales. However, from what the noble Baroness said in moving the amendment, it would appear that she is concerned about recreational activities carried on by the charitable or voluntary sector in Wales. The main purpose of the WDA is to regenerate the Welsh economy. The matters to which she refers are probably already included in relation to business. I shall contemplate the issue further and bring it to the attention of those who have more significance in this matter than myself. However, I believe that it would be inappropriate for the matters to be dealt with by the Welsh Development Agency.
    Having pointed out that there is no need for these further duties, or that they are inappropriate, I invite the noble Baroness either to withdraw or not to move the amendment.
    Lord Renton: I have not spoken so far on this Bill, for which noble Lords perhaps are thankful. However, this amendment appeals very much to me, and I felt that I should lend my support to it.
    Despite what the noble and learned Lord has already said about the various bodies responsible for protecting the environment of Wales, will he confirm that the elected representatives of the assembly of Wales will also have responsibilities even if this amendment is not accepted?
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not follow the noble Lord's question. They will certainly have responsibilities, but he has not asked in relation to what. I confirm that they will have responsibilities imposed on them by the Bill—and they will be very substantial responsibilities in relation to the running and governing of Wales—but I cannot go beyond that.
    Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for his assurances in regard to Amendment No. 261A. I certainly have no intention at all of abolishing either the Countryside Council or Cadw, both of which do excellent work. In the light of the noble and learned Lord's assurances I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 261A.

    1365
    As to Amendment No. 262ZA, there may be some misunderstanding as to why I wish to move the amendment. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for perhaps agreeing that we might come back to it at another stage. I will take further advice on it. I feel that the particular concerns of the Open Spaces Society with regard to Amendment No. 262ZA may not have been met by the noble and learned Lord's remarks so far. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 261A.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 262 and 262ZA not moved.]
    Schedule 11 agreed to.
    Clause 130 agreed to.
    Schedule 12 agreed to.
    Clauses 131 and 132 agreed to.
    Clause 133 [Winding-down]:
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 262A:
    Page 64, line 26, leave out ("conferred or imposed on that Agency") and insert ("imposed on that Agency, or conferred on the Secretary of State,").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment Nos. 262A and I shall also speak to Amendment No. 262B. These are drafting amendments. First, they remove the references in Clauses 133 and 139 to functions "conferred" on the Development Board for Rural Wales and Land Authority for Wales. This is superfluous. Only the term "imposed" is needed.
    Secondly, the amendments change the wording of these clauses to reflect that used in similar provisions in Clause 143. The Secretary of State will need the assistance of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority to carry out functions conferred on him by Clauses 133 and 139. Inserting the words as printed would require each body to provide it. I beg to move Amendment No. 262A.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 134 to 138 agreed to.
    6.15 p.m.
    Clause 139 [Winding-Down]:
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 262B:
    Page 67, line 12, leave out ("conferred or imposed on that Agency") and insert ("imposed on that Agency, or conferred on the Secretary of State,").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 140 agreed to.
    On Question, Whether Clause 141 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Roberts of Conwy: There has been very little parliamentary discussion of the housing issues raised by
    1366
    the transfer of functions of Tai Cymru Housing For Wales to the Secretary of State under Clause 141. All we know is that this body, which had a budget of nearly £63 million in 1997–98, is being absorbed into the Welsh Office which will perform its functions for the time being.
    As to the long-term future of these functions, there is very little light cast in the Bill although housing is listed in Schedule 2 among the 18 fields in which functions are to be transferred by order to the assembly.
    Paragraph 3.31 of the White Paper, A Voice for Wales, states:
    "the restructuring of Tai Cymru's responsibilities will give local authorities a significantly enhanced role in co-ordinating the delivery of local housing strategies matched to the needs of their areas. They will also have the power in appropriate circumstances to provide new housing themselves".
    It seems that the Government have not yet quite decided how housing responsibilities are to be divided. It seems that there is to be some reallocation of duties to local authorities. Will the Minister give some indication of the likely course of events? Housing is traditionally a very important subject in Wales, as elsewhere. It would be remiss of us simply to pass these functions back to the Welsh Office without any comment at all in Parliament.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is not a specific amendment relating to Clause 141. I understand the concerns that have been expressed and I will undertake to write further to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
    Clause 141 agreed to.
    Schedule 13 agreed to.
    Clause 142 [Transitional provisions]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 263:
    Page 69, line 18, after first ("or") insert ("by Housing for Wales or the Housing Corporation for the purpose of or in connection with").
    The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 263 and 264 are technical amendments. They are required to correct an omission from the Bill in relation to the functioning of the Housing for Wales' lending responsibilities when they are transferred to the Secretary of State under Clause 141(2).
    Housing for Wales is a qualifying lender under Section 376(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. It can give mortgage interest relief at source in respect of some 20 mortgages and loans. Some of the loans have been made by Housing for Wales and we have provided for those in the Bill. Other loans inherited by the Secretary of State were made by the predecessor authority, the Housing Corporation in Wales.
    Without these changes the Secretary of State would be unable to give mortgage interest relief at source. That would be undesirable and these amendments simply tidy up the situation. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 264:
    Page 69, line 24, leave out from ("Wales") to end of line 26 and insert ("and are made or commenced before its functions are transferred, and
    (b) for Housing for Wales or the Housing Corporation in any instruments, contracts or legal proceedings which relate to any property, rights or liabilities transferred by section 141(2) and are so made or commenced.").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 143 and 144 agreed to.
    Clause 145 [Accounts, audit and reports]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 265:
    Page 72, line 4, after ("Wales,") insert ("the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales,").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 14 agreed to.
    Clause 146 [Examinations into use of resources]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 265A:
    Page 72, line 30, at end insert—
    ("( ) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

    (a) consult the Auditor General for Wales, and

    (b) take into account any relevant work done or being done by the Auditor General for Wales,

    before he carries out an examination under section 6 or 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations) in respect of a body or office specified in Schedule 14.").
    The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to ensure consistency. It will bring Clause 146 into line with comparable provisions elsewhere in Clause 103 and Schedules 5 and 6 where the Comptroller and Auditor General is required to consult. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 147 [Transfer etc. of functions of Comptroller and Auditor General]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 266:
    Page 72, line 39, leave out from ("Wales") to end of line 40 and insert (", Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales, the Welsh Administration Ombudsman, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, a county council, a county borough council or a").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 266A:
    After Clause 147, insert the following new clause—
    ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
    (.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

    (a) make provision for any function of the Comptroller and Auditor General relating to the Environment Agency to become a function also of the Auditor General for Wales
    1368
    so far as it relates to any of the Agency's Welsh functions or to any funding provided to the Agency by the Assembly, or

    (b) make provision about reports to the Assembly by the Environment Agency on the Agency's activities in exercise of its Welsh functions (including provision for the giving of directions by the Assembly about such reports).

    (2) An order under subsection (1) may contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions in the form of amendments or repeals of enactments).
    (3) An Order in Council under section 22 may include any provision that may be included in an order under subsection (1).
    (4) In this section references to the Environment Agency's Welsh functions are to its functions so far as exercisable in relation to—

    (a) Wales,

    (b) an area of the sea adjoining either the coast of Wales or an area of the sea forming part of Wales, or

    (c) a cross-border body, or an English border area, in relation to which environmental functions of the Assembly are exercisable;

    and "environmental functions of the Assembly" means functions of the Assembly in a field in which the Environment Agency also has functions.").
    The noble Lord said: In this group are Amendments Nos. 266A, 270A and 270B. Their purpose is to allow the Secretary of State by order to provide that the Auditor General for Wales may have the same functions as the Comptroller and Auditor General as regards the functions of the Environment Agency in relation to Wales and to permit the Auditor General for Wales to undertake value-for-money exercises in relation to those functions.
    At present, the Auditor General has powers only in respect of public bodies whose functions relate exclusively to Wales or to a part of it. The Comptroller and Auditor General will not lose any functions by virtue of these amendments. Under the reporting process, the Environment Agency will continue to produce a single set of accounts covering England and Wales which will be laid before Parliament. As is the present practice, the Comptroller and Auditor General will be entitled to inspect those accounts under Section 46 of the Environment Act 1995. The accounts will include a set of figures covering Welsh activities. It will be presented to the assembly, so it is appropriate that the Auditor General shall be able to inspect them. Under the order-making power of the new clause, the Environment Agency, which is an England and Wales body, will be required to make a report to the assembly about the exercise of its Welsh functions. These are necessary provisions. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 148 to 150 agreed to.
    Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 267:
    Before Clause 151, insert the following new clause—
    REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF THIS ACT
    (" .—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Secretary of State—

    (a) shall, if the Assembly passes a motion to that effect; and

    (b) may, in any event,

    conduct a review of the operation of some or all of the provisions of this Act.
    (2) A review under subsection (1) above shall not include—

    (a) any provision of Part I or III or sections 108 to 110, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158 or 159; or

    (b) any provision less than two years after it has come into force.

    (3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State shall—

    (a) publish an announcement of the review, setting out—

    (i) which provisions of this Act are included within the scope of the review, and

    (ii) the period, which must be of at least two months' duration, within which interested parties may make representations to him on the outcome of the review;

    (b) consult such persons and bodies as he thinks appropriate; and

    (c) take account of any representations made to him by—

    (i) the Assembly, or any committee of the Assembly,

    (ii) any of the Welsh public bodies mentioned in Part VI in so far as they are affected by the provisions under review, and

    (iii) any other individual, body or organisation in Wales exercising statutory functions which are or might be affected by the review.

    (4) The outcome of a review under this section shall be published in the form of a report and shall be laid before Parliament.
    (5) Where a report under subsection (4) recommends changes to the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State may, not less than one month after publication of the report, make those changes by order.
    (6) An order under subsection (5) shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
    The noble Lord said: My Amendments Nos. 267 and 270 are intended to be uncontentious. They are designed to be constructive and to make the Bill more, not less, effective in practice. When I spoke on Second Reading on 21st April, I said:
    "If after some time it becomes clear that there are aspects of the new arrangements which do not work well, the introduction of new, amending legislation might well cause disquiet and controversy by suggesting that the Government might be going back on their commitments. Would it not therefore be sensible, and very much in the interests of the people of Wales, to have a clause in the Bill providing for a review of the arrangements after, say, two years, so that any necessary or desirable changes and improvements could be made without bringing in new legislation?".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1094.]
    This amendment produces the clause I then suggested. It provides a simple mechanism to enable any small defects which become apparent to be corrected. It applies to only parts of the Bill and the review can be initiated either by the assembly or by the Secretary of State. Any changes will be subject to the approval of Parliament. I commend the amendments to the Government and to the Committee. I beg to move.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is some merit in the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, especially as he clearly exempts parts of the Bill which I suspect the Government would not wish to have reviewed. It seems sensible that we should accept that this Bill, as with the Scotland Bill, will not be perfect. This is a novel arrangement for people in the United Kingdom and therefore it is
    1370
    sensible to include some procedure for the review of certain aspects of the legislation. If as a result of the review it is decided that changes are necessary there is a procedure for making those changes. I believe that the amendment deserves favourable consideration by the Government and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: As always, I regard the noble Lord's amendment as intended to be constructive and helpful. I am not able to support it. It would be unusual for a Bill to have a self-amendment clause. I believe that the way forward is to think of Clause 34 which allows the assembly to consider any matter affecting Wales and to make representations accordingly. Therefore, if there were occasions such as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the assembly is able to make representations according to what it finds to be a defect.
    Then there is the proposal that would enable the Secretary of State by order to amend most of the Bill by enactment. I recognise that the amendment is put forward in a constructive way, but we believe that there are strong reasons to reject it. It gives the Secretary of State sweeping Henry VIII powers to allow him to alter the nature of the assembly without regard to the wishes of those who elected it or the assembly itself. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has already drawn your Lordships' attention to the number of Henry VIII powers already contained in the Bill.
    More fundamentally, we fear that if the noble Lord's amendment were passed it would prevent the emergence of a stable devolution settlement. The Secretary of State could at any time overturn nearly all the relevant provisions without—and I stress this—bringing forward fresh primary legislation. The mere presence of those powers on the statute book would be a recipe for permanent uncertainty and we do not believe that that would be good for the assembly, for Wales or for the Union.
    We support flexibility. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the enormous amount of time and trouble he has taken and for the courteous way in which he has always approached me with his amendments, privately and in correspondence. I am sorry to have to reach the disappointing conclusion that we cannot accept them.
    Lord Moran: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I understand what he says. It is unusual to have a review clause in a Bill, but this is a rather unusual Bill. We are entering new territory.
    I welcome his comments about Clause 34 and I hope that it will not be necessary to make changes. However, I believe that in practice there will be defects. We have already found some and corrected them in Committee. I was seeking only to provide a mechanism to achieve that. However, I hope that by using

    1371
    Clause 34 the assembly will be able to make the necessary changes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 151 [Power to amend enactments]:
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 268:
    Page 74, line 12, leave out ("subordinate legislation").
    The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to bring the wording of Clause 151 into line with other references to subordinate legislation in Clauses 29(8), 43(6), 44(2) and 46(4). Therefore, it is intended to bring consistency. I beg to move.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Does this amendment mean that once the words "subordinate legislation" are out, paragraph (b) will be referring to subordinate legislation in fact because that is what is made, whereas Acts of Parliament are passed? I do not understand why the Government have tabled this amendment.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The point of this amendment is to leave out in line 12 the words "subordinate legislation". I am not entirely sure that I understand the drift of the noble Lord's question. That may well be my deficiency. As I understand it, it is simply to bring consistency and conformity with those other parts of the Bill to which I referred. I may have misheard the noble Lord's question.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be that I did not phrase it very well. Do I take it that the Secretary of State may by order change any subordinate legislation, just as in paragraph (a) it appears that he can change an Act?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    On Question, Whether Clause 151, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend and I have tabled our opposition to this Motion. This clause, as anybody who reads it will see, is a fairly large Henry VIII clause. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has left us because I am sure that he would be interested in contributing to the debate. I am sorry also that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, equally interested in Henry VIII clauses, is not with us. Therefore, I must say my few words having learnt at their feet. Whenever I proposed anything that looked vaguely like a Henry VIII clause they came to their feet and reprimanded me.
    I do not believe that I ever proposed anything quite a draconian as this Henry VIII clause. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, a few moments ago that his amendment was a self-amending clause. It seems to me that Clause 151 is a
    1372
    self-amending clause. The Minister suggested also that that amendment would be a Henry VIII clause. Clause 151 is the mother and father of Henry VIII clauses. It states:
    "The Secretary of State may by order make in any enactment contained in … an Act passed before or in the same session as this Act, or … such amendments or repeals as appear to him to be appropriate in consequence of this Act".
    I have little doubt that the Minister will tell me that I should not worry because the matter can be dealt with only by an affirmative order. I regret that I do still worry. It is an enormous Henry VIII clause.
    I can see the point—and no doubt the Minister will make it—that with a piece of legislation as novel to us in this country as this, we may well have missed something with which we should be dealing today. After all, the repeals clause is fairly extensive. I can see that something may be missed which requires to be dealt with; that it would be foolish to require primary legislation; and that an affirmative order is a sensible solution. I am prepared to accept—as I suppose I must because I no doubt did it myself on a number of occasions—that an affirmative order is an acceptable way to deal with Henry VIII clauses.
    However, this provision will be in the Bill for a long time to come. It worries me that way in the future, long after the time for sorting out some of the problems which may arise from learning to live with a new kind of structure in the UK, a Secretary of State—and I notice it is the Secretary of State—may decide to do something which goes beyond anything that we envisage in the course of our discussions in both Houses on this Bill.
    Perhaps the Minister will consider allaying my reservations about this Henry VIII clause by considering a time limit. I shall not suggest whether it should be within a month or a year. However, there should be a reasonable time limit within which the clause should fold. Therefore, it will be there to help the Government to tidy up any loose ends which we may have omitted in Parliament, but it will also come to an end and cannot be used by a Secretary of State some years in the future in a way of which Henry VIII would have certainly approved.
    Lord Hooson: Will the Minister consider what has occurred now after his amendment to take out the words "subordinate legislation" in relation to the wording of Clause 151? It now reads:
    "The Secretary of State may by order make in any enactment contained in … made before the passing of this Act".
    The word "subordinate" should have been taken out but not the word "legislation".
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may in part be right in that regard. We may well bring a printing revision before the House in due course. That has been noted and I am aware of it. The noble Lord is right about that.
    I turn now to the more fundamental point, if I may say so without disrespect, which is raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. These are reasonable questions to raise. This is not really a self-amendment

    1373
    clause because an order under Clause 151 cannot amend this Bill. It is limited quite substantially, as the Committee will see. The amendment power is limited to:
    "An Act passed before or in the same session as this Act or … legislation made before the passing of this Act or in the session in which this Act is passed".
    I agree that it is a limitation; it is not an entire limitation. But if I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is talking about time in the future relating to time of amendment rather than the time of the passage of the original legislation.
    Clause 151, with the limits that I have indicated, is a means of making consequential changes in the most efficient way possible. We have in mind that it may become apparent that the enacted provisions of this Bill are at odds with another statute. If so, the changes could be effected by order. That means that we do not burden this House or another place with fresh primary legislation to effect no more than what would be technical amendments. I suggest that it would be a waste of Parliament's time to require primary legislation and would produce unjustified, unwarranted and sometimes quite intolerable delay in making the necessary changes.
    I am aware of what the noble Lord said about Henry VIII powers. One always needs to be careful. But the Committee will note that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee saw no need to draw to your Lordships' attention the power in this clause. It noted that it and similar provisions in the Bill,
    "all arise naturally out of the subject matter".
    There is the further limitation that Clause 151 makes it quite plain that it may be used only in consequence of the enacted provisions of the Bill. There is no carte blanche there. The noble Lord rightly foresaw that I would say, as I do, that this will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses, so there is a check on the Secretary of State.
    This clause intends to contemplate that we may have got things wrong; there may be errors and omissions; and it is a fairly simple mechanistic device to put things right, limited in the ways that I have indicated.
    Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 152 agreed to.
    Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 269:
    Page 131, line 16, at end insert—

  PART AI
  WELSH ADMINISTRATION OMBUDSMAN AND HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONER FOR WALES

  Chapter 1967 c. 13.

  Short title The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

  Extent of repeal In Schedule 2, the entries relating to the Arts Council of Wales (Cyngor Celfyddydau Cymru), Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg (Welsh Language Board), the Countryside Council for Wales, the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of

  1374

  Schools in Wales, the Sports Council for Wales and the Wales Tourist Board.

  1974 c. 7.

  The Local Government Act 1974.

  In section 33(5), the words "by any of the Commissioners mentioned in this section, or by any of their officers,".

  1989 c. 26.

  The Finance Act 1989.

  In section 182(4)(a)(i), the word "or".

  1990 c. 43.

  The Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  In Schedule 6, paragraph 23(a).

  1993 c. 38.

  The Welsh Language Act 1993.

  In Schedule 1, paragraph 5.

  1993 c. 46.

  The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.

  In section 2, in subsection (2)(b), the word "and" and, in subsection (5), the words "by Order in Council".

  In section 18(3), the words "by a Commissioner or his officers".

  In Schedule 1, in paragraphs 3(2)(a) and 3A(2)(a), the words "or for Wales" and paragraph 11(2).

  1995 c. 17.

  The Health Authorities Act 1995.

  In Schedule 1, in paragraph 126(2)(b), the words "in paragraph (b), after "Wales," insert "and"".

  S.I. 1995/1615.

  The Parliamentary Commissioner Order 1995.

  In article 2, the words ""Arts Council of Wales (Cyngor Celfyddydau Cymru)",".

  1996 c. 57.

  The School Inspections Act 1996.

  In Schedule 6, in paragraph 1, the entry relating to the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales.")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 269A and 269B:
  Page 139, leave out lines 18 and 19.
  Page 141, line 39, column 3, leave out ("91,").
  The noble Lord said: Again, these are simple technical amendments. They are necessary because the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, which is currently proceeding through Parliament, will repeal the Land Commission Act and the provisions in the Housing Act 1988. Therefore, there is no need for those references to appear in Schedule 15.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule, 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 153 agreed to.
  Clause 154 [Orders and directions]:
  [Amendment No. 270 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 270A, 270B and 271:
  Page 74, line 30, after ("147(1)") insert (", (Environment Agency)(1)").
  Page 74, line 43, after ("147(1),") insert ("(Environment Agency)(1),").
  Page 74, line 43, leave out ("or paragraph 1 of Schedule 6") and insert (", paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 or paragraph 16(9) of Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 155 [Interpretation]:
  [Amendment No. 271A not moved.]
  Clause 155 agreed to.
  Clause 156 [Defined expressions]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 271B to 271E:
  Page 76, line 7, column 1, leave out ("area") and insert ("body").
  Page 76, line 7, leave out column 2 and insert ("paragraph 3(2) of Schedule (Transfer etc. of functions: further provisions)").
  Page 76, line 12, at end insert—

  ("English border area

  paragraph 3(2) of Schedule (Transfer etc. of functions: further provisions)")

  Page 76, line 26, at end insert—

  ("relevant Parliamentary procedural provision

  section 45(3)")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 272:
  Page 76, line 31, at end insert—

  ("Welsh Administration Ombudsman

  section (Welsh Administration Ombudsman)")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 156, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.

  In the Title
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 273:
  Line 2, leave out ("office of Auditor General for Wales") and insert ("offices of Auditor General for Wales and Welsh Administration Ombudsman").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

  National Minimum Wage Bill
  6.44 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before we move to a resolution on that Motion, there is an important matter which I feel I must raise at this time. It is a matter that I have raised in the past, and especially on the first day of Committee on the Bill. As the Minister will appreciate, we have repeatedly raised the issue of the publication of the report by the Low Pay Commission and the Government's reaction to it. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned it on Second Reading. When he responded to these matters on the first Committee day last Thursday, the Minister indicated (at col. 1199 of Hansard) that the Low Pay Commission would make a report of its findings. We sought to explain to him why we regarded it as important that we at least saw the report, preferably before the end of our time for consideration of the Bill, and also had sight of the Government's reaction to it.
  The Minister (at col. 1203 of Hansard), rebuked me for having relied upon a report in the Daily Telegraph last Thursday, and for relying on "titbits of information" based on speculation. That was because there had been a report that Mr. John Monks of the TUC was writing to the Government offering his detailed views on the report. There are repeated references to the report and why we considered it desirable to have sight of it. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General wondered why we were so concerned to see the report. Again, it was repeated that there was no need for this and that we would be seeing it in due course.
  However, early yesterday morning Mr. John Edmonds, who I understand is the General Secretary of the GMB, appeared on GMTV. During the course of an interview in that programme he indicated that not only did he have before him in the studio an executive summary of the report from the Low Pay Commission but also that he had a full copy of it. Clearly he had had it for some time. He indicated that it was large, dense and extensive but that he had, nevertheless, read it in its entirety.
  The matter which is of real concern to us is the fact that it would now appear that there is direct evidence to show that senior members of the trade union movement have been given access to the report before Parliament has had any opportunity to consider it. We certainly have not seen the report, despite repeated requests in that respect. I do not blame the Minister personally for this, but he indicated that we would see the report before the end of last month. We are now halfway through June and we have not seen it; but others clearly have and they are not parliamentarians.
  It seems to us to be yet another example of this Government's arrogance, their contempt for Parliament and their partiality. We continue to regard it as

  1377
  extremely important that we see the report and, indeed, the Government's reaction to it before we complete consideration of this Bill. I hope that the Minister will not fob me off with some excuse that this must have been a leak. The demeanour of Mr. Edmonds on television and the way that he approached the matter made it perfectly clear that he was not a man in possession of a document which he believed he should not have. Indeed, he was quite open about having considered the report. He offered his detailed comments on it and, as I said, indicated that he had read it in its entirety.
  Before we are prepared to make further progress on this Bill, we want to know when we will see this report. We really must see it. It is a matter of considerable concern to us that others should already have seen the report. The fact that Mr. John Monks was in a position to offer detailed comments to the Government on it, as revealed in the Daily Telegraph last Thursday, would indicate that he had seen it and that he had had knowledge of it for some time. Moreover, Mr. John Edmonds quite openly said on television yesterday morning that he had seen it.
  Will the Minister tell us whether the report was issued to these senior trade unionists with the approval of the President of the Board of Trade, or with the approval of the Minister of State who has responsibility for the Bill in the Department of Trade and Industry? Who else has been privileged to see this report before anyone in either of the two Houses of Parliament has been permitted to see it? This is becoming an intolerable state of affairs.
  A similar thing happened to my noble friend Lady Blatch with regard to the education Bill currently before the House. My noble friend discovered that a large number of reports and papers had been passed to other people, but she is still unable to obtain those publications. We must insist that we see this report immediately. We must also insist that it is disclosed to us who has seen this report and on what basis. What possible justification is there at a time when there is legislation going through Parliament for that report not to be made available to those who need to see it to enable them to consider the Bill? I hope that the Minister will give us a full and open response. We shall certainly not be fobbed off with the notion that this was in some way a simple leak. If the Minister had seen the television programme yesterday, he would know perfectly well that that is not the case. I hope he can offer me the answers that I seek.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving notice that this point would be raised. That is acting within the courtesies of the House. I can say little about Mr. Edmonds. First, I did not see GMTV. I do not think I have ever watched GMTV. Perhaps I should have done so on this occasion. It is said—it is an allegation that I neither corroborate nor refute—that Mr. Edmonds had a report of the executive summary and indeed a full copy of the report. All I can say is that the report has not been published. That, of course, is a matter for Ministers. No one has authorised the disclosure of the report to Mr. Edmonds, as far as I know.
  1378
  The noble and learned Lord asked who has seen the report. Relevant Ministers have, of course, seen it. As I said, we have not agreed the disclosure of the report to anyone outside, or indeed at this stage, within Parliament. The noble and learned Lord said that this is an act of partiality. He draws an inference therefore that we have given the report to Mr. Edmonds. That is not true. The noble and learned Lord referred to the demeanour of Mr. Edmonds. I know nothing about his demeanour because I did not see the programme. All I can say is that if Mr. Edmonds has received a copy of the report which was not authorised, I believe he would have been ill advised to have said so. But there we are.
  The noble and learned Lord asked about the date of publication of the report. I can give him no additional information beyond that which I advised the House of on the previous occasion we met. The report will be published at the earliest opportunity. As regards whether Mr. Monks has seen the report, my remarks apropos Mr. Edmonds and others apply equally in that regard. We have not been partial and we have not disclosed the report officially or authoritatively to anyone. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept my bona fides in that regard. I would not make a statement to the House which attempted to mislead the House in any sense. The noble and learned Lord knows that. That is all I can say about the matter at this stage. I am perturbed that Mr. Edmonds appears—if the noble and learned Lord is right—to have received the report. I can go no further than that.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I must first make it clear that I do not intend to suggest in any way that the noble Lord has been involved in this matter or that he might have authorised the disclosure of this report to senior trade unionists. That is why in my opening remarks I specifically asked whether the Minister of State, Mr. McCartney, who has the primary responsibility for this Bill and for low pay issues within government, had authorised the disclosure, or whether his senior Minister in Cabinet, the President of the Board of Trade, had authorised it.
  I accept the noble Lord's bona fides in this matter. However, I am bound to say that my credulity is stretched when on Thursday in the Daily Telegraph Mr. Monks can offer authoritative comment on the contents of the report, and on Sunday another senior trade unionist can appear on television and offer similarly authoritative comment on the report. He was quite open about having not only an executive summary, but the full report which he had read from cover to cover. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow or other a copy of the report of the Low Pay Commission was spirited out of the DTI or some other department and happened to find its way into the hands of individuals such as Mr. Monks or Mr. Edmonds, and that no one knew anything about it.
  As I say, I do not attribute any personal blame to the noble Lord or suggest that he authorised the disclosure, but the matter looks extremely suspicious. I do not withdraw my comment that it appears to be hugely partial to allow senior trade unionists access to this report before anyone in Parliament has the opportunity

  1379
  to consider it. We are extremely concerned about the matter. We are prepared to make progress on the Bill but we shall certainly pursue the matter in correspondence and in questions. It simply will not do to have another report being circulated to which Parliament ought to have access. If nothing else, the Minister should indicate to us that he will have an inquiry undertaken to discover how these senior trade unionists have one or more copies of the report, and whether that was authorised by anyone. If it is concluded that there has been a leak, we would expect something to be done about it. At the very least we would hope that the noble Lord would offer an apology to your Lordships' House for the way in which we have been treated in this matter.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before the Minister responds, I do not think I have ever seen GMTV either. Before I entered the Chamber this evening I was totally unaware that this matter would be raised. Perhaps I might ask that when notice is given of these matters it might be extended to Members on these Benches also. Clearly it is disturbing if a report is released which should come before Parliament. I accept the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Furthermore, I think it is slightly disingenuous of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, to indicate that he may be prepared to hold up the business of your Lordships' House in Committee on this point.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Viscount might have listened to what I had to say. The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip probably noted my remarks with rather keener interest when I said that while I would pursue the matter in correspondence and questions I did not wish to hold up the business at this stage.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that assurance. Having not had notice of what was to be said and the consequences of it I had to listen rather harder to the exchanges. As I said, I am prepared together with, I believe, Members on these Benches, to accept the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I hope that we can now get on with this important piece of legislation.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before the Minister responds to that point, I make the observation that as there appears to have been not a leak but a general distribution of this report, would it not be in the best interests of the quality of debate within this Committee and the contribution that can be made from all four corners of this Committee to this important issue if the Minister could give us the undertaking that the report could be issued to us as soon as possible, that is, either tonight or tomorrow?
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I certainly cannot respond affirmatively to the noble Baroness in that way. Moreover, I want to say definitively that there has been
  1380
  no general distribution of the report. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for saying that he is content to make progress, but before we move on to the Committee stage I want to say that I refute the allegation, on the basis of the information that I have, that any Minister authorised the release of this report to anybody.
  I cannot go beyond that. I hope that we can now make progress, and of course a statement will be made at the earliest opportunity. I am not in charge of this Bill within the department. The noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that it is my honourable friend the Minister of State who is in charge of it. I am here speaking together with my noble friends at the Committee stage and on behalf of the Government during this stage and succeeding stages of the Bill. That being the case, I hope that we can now move on.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House again in Committee accordingly.
  7 p.m.
  [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
  Clause 9 [Duty of employers to keep records]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 7, line 30, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
  The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 68, all of which relate to Clause 9. They are intended to improve the working of the Act, as it will be, and its administration. It is entirely right and proper that employers should be required to keep adequate records to enable employees and the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Act to see whether the minimum wage has been paid. We support that. Our reasons for putting forward Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are that the clause as drawn at present gives rise to the possibility of an extra, unnecessary and entirely superfluous set of records being required.
  Employers are already required to keep substantial and detailed records of pay and benefits for the purposes of PAYE and national insurance. These records adequately provide all the information that an employee will require about the remuneration that he has received. Their accuracy is guaranteed so far as possible under the sanction of severe financial and possible criminal sanctions under the taxation and social security law.
  Where the tax and national insurance records do not meet the needs of an employee for the purposes of this Bill is that they do not show the number of hours worked and possibly details of matters which the Low Pay Unit says are to be taken into account in calculating net pay for the special purposes of this Act. This potential deficiency in the records is, I believe, partially covered by the second half of the proposed new subsection (2), starting in Amendment No. 67 with the words,
  "save for details of the number of hours worked and any benefits in kind".

  1381
  In other words, under this clause the employer still has to keep records on the number of hours worked, but even this does not go far enough to assist the employee. So in addition there is the new subsection proposed in Amendment No. 68, which I assume would be numbered (4).
  This will allow records which will eventually be required to be kept by the employer in compliance with the European Community Working Time Directive also to satisfy the requirement to keep records under this Bill. I cannot believe that the bureaucratic requirements of the European Community will not be entirely sufficient for the purposes of the DTI.
  I turn now to the modest Amendment No. 65 to be made to Clause 9(b). Once again, because of a quirk of the grouping list, I am speaking to it out of its logical sequence. Again, we agree that it is right that in formulating regulations with regard to the keeping of records provision should be made for how long those records should be retained. All the amendment requires is that whatever stipulation the Secretary of State may make in this regard should be reasonable, for, as drawn, the Bill enables her to require such records be kept for 20, 50 or even 100 years. Obviously no such nonsense is intended by the Government.
  From the employee's point of view, it would be equally detrimental if an unreasonably short period of retention were to be prescribed. The Acts governing income tax, PAYE, national insurance and VAT all prescribe how long records are to be retained, and there is absolutely no reason why the regime under this Bill should require anything different. Rights under this Bill will essentially be a civil claim for a debt, and there is equally really no reason why the regulations should prescribe anything longer than the basic limitation periods for making civil claims.
  However, I am not going to try to second-guess the Secretary of State. She can decide the period, as the Bill at present provides. All that she has to do is to see that the period is reasonable. I asked for the word "reasonable" to be inserted in Clause 1(4) in my Amendment No. 4 which was discussed last Thursday. The Solicitor-General spent a little time trying to justify the proposition that it would be inhibiting to the operation of the Bill if there was a specific requirement to be "reasonable". In effect he said, "Trust us: we are the Government". Well, I am casting no aspersions, but in the case of the present amendment, if the Government's word is as good as their bond, then let them give us their bond. Frankly, I was unable to understand the logic of the argument that if the word "reasonable" was used in the Bill it would generate a flood of litigation. Leaving out the word, however, does not exempt the Secretary of State from being reasonable in any reasonable interpretation of that word.
  The Minister is perfectly well aware that there is a right for an aggrieved citizen to have the court's rule on irrational and unreasonable conduct by a Minister. This right was fully defined in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation in 1948. In that case the late and highly distinguished Master of the Rolls, Lord Greene, codified the law into
  1382
  what are called the Wednesbury Rules. The present Lord Chancellor described the Wednesbury Rules as the locus classicus of British administrative law.
  In other words, the Government cannot escape from the duty of being reasonable by not including that word in this Bill. They cannot, ostrich-like, hide their heads in the sand and pretend that this elementary and essential obligation on their part does not exist. An aggrieved citizen will still be entitled to take the Government to court if he believes that they are behaving unreasonably. Agreeing to the use of the word is therefore merely a promise by the Government about their future conduct.
  Whatever theoretical objections there were to promising to be "reasonable" for the purposes of Clause 1, which we debated ad nauseum last Thursday, there can surely be absolutely none for this clause. There is ample precedent for the periods for which records are required to be retained for taxation and similar purposes. It bears repeating that the burden of this Bill is largely going to fall on the small and medium-sized businesses. Larger concerns will be able to absorb the administration involved into their pay and accounts departments, but in the case of SMEs this will just add to the work to be done, usually by local shops: businesses like hairdressers and small-sized manufacturing operations. There is no reason to add to their administrative costs and red tape and to provide work for even more inspectors when entirely adequate records are already available. Equally, we do not want to see some wretched local shopkeeper being dragged before the magistrates or subjected to an administrative penalty, not because he did not keep perfectly adequate and practical records but because he did not do so on a particular design of form prescribed by the Secretary of State.
  The amendments to this clause are tabled in the course of this House carrying out its function as a revising Chamber. I hope the Government will agree that their purposes are purely constructive. I hope they will be willing to accept them.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There are three amendments in this grouping, Amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 68. As the noble Baroness said, they all relate to record-keeping. I think we all agree on the importance of record-keeping to the success of the Bill. Without adequate records, it will not be possible to enforce the legislation. A worker needs to see what he is being paid, and an employer needs records in order to be able to defend himself in case he is accused of under-paying. It is therefore in the interests of all that adequate records are available. I believe that the noble Baroness accepts that.
  Perhaps I may deal with the amendments in the order in which the noble Baroness did. Amendment No. 67 seeks to limit the Secretary of State's flexibility to decide the form and content of records by tying them to the types of records already required for income tax or national insurance purposes. It is drawn on what seems an entirely laudable aim; namely, to avoid undesirable duplication in the records kept by an employer. Underlying it there would also seem to be the desire to place as little a burden as is necessary upon the

  1383
  employer. That is an aim that we unquestionably share. We agree with the motive of avoiding duplication. We have said so clearly on a number of occasions, in particular in the regulatory appraisal for the Bill, where we pointed out that most wage detail will indeed already be kept for tax purposes.
  Without being boring, perhaps I may remind the Committee of what we said in that document. We stated:
  "It is in employers' own interests to know how much they are paying their staff. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that employers will already have records for the calculation of total pay that will be sufficient to calculate pay as it relates to the national minimum wage. They will already have such records available for inspection by the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency".
  The regulatory appraisal went on to note that there will be differences in the types of records to be kept, not least in relation to the number of hours worked and any non-monetary payments which may be allowed to count towards the hourly minimum wage rate. The amendment acknowledges that. That is why it expressly allows for different requirements to be added.
  The noble Baroness has made the case for the clause as it stands within the terms of her own amendment. It is for the very reason that different types of records may be required that we have drafted the power to make record-keeping regulations quite broadly.
  I should also remind the Committee of our commitment to consult on the regulations in draft form before bringing them to the House. There will therefore be an opportunity for businesses and individuals to make representations on the record-keeping regulations. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing my attention in the proposed amendment to the various related statutes covering record-keeping for tax and national insurance purposes. The Government will be considering very closely the relationship between those records and any further records to be kept for national minimum wage purposes in the light of the feedback from the forthcoming consultation.
  I hope it is clear from my remarks that the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 67 and the Government's purpose in relation to it are very similar. We say that there should not be an amendment because we want to give maximum flexibility with the same aim. However, it goes slightly further. The noble Baroness may know that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee regards the affirmative procedure that we have laid down in the Bill and which is required for these regulations as too high a level of parliamentary control for use of the power in Clause 9 to impose record-keeping requirements on employers. The committee believes that the negative procedure would be adequate. I also note its indication that this is a rather unusual conclusion for it to reach in the context of its security functions.
  Far be it from me to want to make life unnecessarily difficult or complicated for the Government. However tempting the committee's proposal might be, I consider it preferable to stick with the affirmative procedure for this measure. It potentially affects all firms; it could add burdens upon firms; and we can expect this measure to attract substantial interest from employers and their
  1384
  organisations, who are always sensitive to the perceived expansion of red tape. It is a measure which could also involve quite complicated issues such as the keeping of records in the case of homeworkers and pieceworkers.
  I very much hope that our introduction into the Bill of the affirmative procedure in relation to this matter, and our sticking to it despite the remarks of the delegated powers scrutiny committee, indicate that we are concerned about burdens on employers and want to make sure that they are as limited as possible. For those reasons, I do not believe it appropriate for the Bill to be changed in the way suggested in Amendment No. 67.
  I now turn to Amendment No. 68. The noble Baroness made the point that she could not believe that a burden imposed by Europe could be less than a burden to be imposed by the DTI. Amendment No. 68 would limit on the face of the Bill the Secretary of State's flexibility to decide the formal manner of records to be kept in respect of hours worked for minimum wage purposes by tying them to records of hours worked which may be kept for the purposes of showing compliance with the working time directive.
  Noble Lords will, I hope, welcome both these initiatives as a sign of the Government's commitment to improving the lot of workers who are obliged to work for too long and/or for too little. These are basic matters of social justice and fairness, as well as matters of sound common sense. It is much to the credit of this Government that we are proceeding apace with making them part of domestic legislation. As I have already said, we do not think it right to prescribe on the face of the Bill the type of records that must be kept. We intend to consult.
  I have referred to the affirmative procedure. I should make it clear that the draft working time regulations, on which further consultation has just been completed, contain a general record-keeping requirement on all employers. Employers simply need to show that the limit of 48 hours' working time is being complied with. They are not necessarily obliged to keep records of hours worked as proof. For example, it might be sufficient for an employer to show that his premises are only open for 48 hours a week and that therefore none of his workers could be exceeding the time limit. Therefore there is no general requirement on all employers to keep records of hours worked. On that ground alone, the amendment would be unsuitable.
  There is a more specific record-keeping requirement in the draft working time regulations which does require employers to keep records of hours worked. However, that applies only to those employers with employees who have opted to work longer than the 48-hour limit. I therefore have considerable doubts as to the suitability of this amendment in the context of the minimum wage.
  However, I take the general point at which the amendment is perhaps aimed; namely, that minimum wage records will almost certainly need to cover hours worked, however that may be defined, and there may be scope for avoiding duplication with other, similar records. All of those sorts of issues will be examined during the consultation, and those particular issues can be examined when the regulations are placed before the House.

  1385
  Finally, the noble Baroness gave an extremely accurate account of the law in relation to Amendment No. 65—and thereby clearly demonstrated why it was wrong to insert the word "reasonable" in relation to this provision. I am sure that everyone agrees that reasonableness is something that we all desire. When we require an individual to make certain records and to keep them, we would not require him to keep them for an unreasonably long time, or indeed for an unreasonably short time. I cannot tell the Committee at this point exactly what type of records we shall be requiring, or the period of time for which they must be kept, because the detail will be determined by secondary legislation following a process of consultation. We shall draft the regulations and draw up a consultation document as soon as the Bill is enacted, if that be the wish of Parliament.
  But let me take this opportunity to reiterate our overall enforcement objective. We will do our utmost to encourage everyone to comply with the national minimum wage. We will ensure that it is effectively enforced, and with the minimum necessary burden on business. Record-keeping is the key to that.
  There are plenty of precedents for record-keeping requirements. There are already laws about keeping income tax, national insurance and VAT records, and about keeping sick pay and maternity pay records, to give just a few examples. I can assure the House that we shall look at those precedents, and more, in considering the periods for which records must be kept.
  But the word "reasonableness" does not need to be written on to the face of the Bill. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses in Wednesbury means that, in making a decision such as this, the Minister is required to act within the bounds of reasonableness. If he or she acts irrationally, perversely or outside the bounds of reasonableness, then subject to the circumstances of the case, there will be an opportunity for the person affected to go to court and raise the matter. If, however, as the noble Baroness now suggests and as she suggested on a previous occasion, you put in the word "reasonableness", you invite the applicant to bring proceedings to get the court to determine what it believes is the appropriate course, not what the policy Minister thinks. However, the last people in the world who should determine the matter is the courts. It should be the Minister, after consulting the people who will be affected—namely, business.
  So despite the beguiling—I use the word again—and reasonable way in which it was put, with the greatest respect, the amendment is misconceived. I ask the noble Baroness to be reasonable and to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister dealt with my amendment in a slightly more conciliatory way than he dealt with some amendments last Thursday. Although I cannot pretend to agree with everything he said, I thank him for his helpful remarks. I shall read them carefully, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
  ("( ) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to any practical factors which would render any record-keeping requirements unreasonable.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It seeks to apply reasonableness in a different way. In his previous argument, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General left me precious few chinks into which to drive a wedge in order to deal with the matter. The amendment seeks to apply the test of reasonableness to the drafting of the regulations that the Secretary of State may make. More specifically, it seeks to apply the contents of those regulations. In moving the amendment I have in mind the agriculture and horticulture industries, in which there are circumstances in which, for example, a requirement to record times of starting and ceasing work might be inappropriate.
  In the agriculture and horticulture industries at harvest time, particular the horticulture industry, for reasons of quality control—of which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who is in his place opposite, will know from the retail end—people work peculiar hours from time to time. Employers may specify a time of day before which employees cannot start work and a time at the end of the day beyond which they may not work. Between those points, people work piece work and will be paid by unit of output. They will often come and go within those hours in quite a random way. They will pop off to take the children to school and again to bring them home. Employees may even pop off—bearing in mind that this is largely in rural communities—to give their husbands lunch. That is not an unusual way of working.
  I remind the Committee that all those practices take place under the requirements of the Agricultural Wages Board. The agriculture and horticulture industries are used to working with a statutory minimum wage. Schemes where the practices work and are used on a regular basis are often already monitored by the board and are generally accepted by it.
  However, there would be a real problem, in such a situation, if there were to be a requirement to put down start and stop times. Perhaps I may illustrate the problem at its most extreme. The biggest employer in the country in this area might have 500 workers at a peak harvest period working for him on a piece work basis.
  I am sorry, I realise that I have been speaking with my hand in my pocket when I am not supposed to. I apologise, it must be because the subject is agricultural.
  An employer might have 500 workers coming and going in fields in various locations, all intended to produce the highest quality produce in the shortest possible time. What the individuals will earn may vary enormously, some will earn at a high rate, some at a relatively low rate, depending on their proficiency, experience and concentration. The test that the Agricultural Wages Board has applied in the past to that type of work is that people should have a fair opportunity to earn the minimum wage within the requisite time. That is at a fair hourly rate. Where the board is satisfied that that is the case, it is all right.
  I return to the point of the amendment, which is to apply the test of reasonableness to the drafting of the regulations. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will treat this request for reasonableness with slightly more sympathy than he did the previous one. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord did not misunderstand my reaction to the previous amendment. I treat the requirement of reasonableness with immense and genuine sympathy, but I take the view, as do the Government, and as would any reasonable individual, that the court is not the best body to fix the regulations. Excellent though the courts are, the last thing they are good at is—
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may intervene to say that I did not wish to imply that there was anything unreasonable in what the noble and learned Lord said.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated candidly that by mistake I answered many of his points beforehand. I sympathise with much of what he said. Many of his points are of real importance in determining the form that the record-keeping regulations should take for the purposes in particular of agricultural workers. As he pointed out, we are keeping the Agricultural Wages Board system and the national minimum wage system going together. We recognise that it should be done while placing the minimum burdens necessary in terms of record-keeping on people employing agricultural workers.
  However, for all the reasons I indicated, while we are committed to reasonable regulations on record-keeping, the best way to achieve that is not through an amendment such as this. For all the reasons I gave, conciliatorily I hope, to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply which was helpful. Inevitably, we shall need to study it, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  Fire Regulations, Scotland
  7.28 p.m.
  Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to alter the building regulations relating to fire in Scotland to bring them nearer to those applying in England and Wales.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish to delay noble Lords hurrying off to dinner but I must begin with a brief apology to my noble friend Lord Sewel on the Front Bench. I did not intend him to have the duty thrust upon him. As he knows, I have been interested in the subject of fire safety over a number of years because of my long-standing connection with the construction industry. I had hoped to discuss my worries with his colleague in the Scottish Office at a meeting. Unfortunately, his colleague declined to meet me and I was then obliged to thrust the burden onto my noble friend, who might have been saved that additional chore.
  I want to refer back to a debate we had in this Chamber on 13th July 1992—a long time ago—when we discussed the changes in the English and Welsh regulations which were in train at that time. During that Unstarred Question debate I referred to the Scottish regulations and the difference between those and the English and Welsh ones and, in passing, the Northern Ireland ones also.
  The main differences between those sets of regulations relate to the periods of fire resistance which have been much longer under the Scottish regulations, and to the requirements for the use of non-combustible building materials in certain parts of buildings where the Scottish regulations are more onerous than are the English regulations were and certainly more onerous than are the revised regulations of 1992.
  The English regulations relaxed both those requirements and, in the course of the debate, it became clear that Scotland was expected to harmonise with England and Wales—oddly enough, not with Europe. In other words, Scotland had to "catch up", as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, put it at that time. It is clear that there was a move afoot to regularise the regulations in the United Kingdom, whether or not they were appropriate.
  At that time the other place debated an Early Day Motion which urged that changes in the Scottish regulations,
  "might proceed only after the new departures have proved themselves in practice to Scottish satisfaction"—
  "satisfaction" being the key word. Encouraged by the interest shown by the other place, I asked in that debate for,
  "an assurance from the noble Viscount that no attempt will be made to coerce the Scots in this matter until the Scots are satisfied that the new English regulations have proved themselves".—[Official Report, 13/7/92; col. 88.]
  That struck me as being an eminently presbyterian way to proceed; that is, to go by the evidence and come to a conclusion after the evidence showed itself to be valuable. The noble Viscount was reasonably accommodating. That did not surprise me because he is

  1389
  a very nice young man. He said that the difference between the regulations would be reviewed, but not necessarily removed. That was important. Then he said,
  "It may be decided to monitor the effect of some of the changes … before adopting them in Scotland".—[col. 93]
  By parliamentary standards, that seemed promising. It was not an actual pledge (I will not go so far as to say that); it was not even a promise; but it was a hint, and a hint is a useful thing in parliamentary terms.
  On the basis of that hint, some time later in September 1996, I asked the Scottish Office in a letter what evidence there was to show the greater effectiveness of the fire safety regulations in England and Wales in comparison with Scotland; that is, I was wondering how far, if at all, the process of monitoring had gone and how effective it had shown itself to be.
  As would be expected, I received a polite and informative reply, but it contained what to me was a surprise. Despite the hint regarding the monitoring made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the letter said,
  "There have been no studies comparing the effectiveness of the two systems of building control with regard to fire safety".
  That took me aback, for the hint—it was not a pledge nor yet a promise—had vanished into the hinterland. Despite the fact that there had been no studies made, harmonisation was going ahead.
  I know, and my noble friend Lord Sewel knows perfectly well, that comparisons are difficult and that fire safety does not only depend on regulations; it depends on many matters. However, one thing seems to be clear. Scotland is safer than England in relation to fire. Why do I say that? Earlier this year I obtained an array of statistics by way of a written reply—a very full reply. Those were analysed for me by the Fire Safety Development Group and the following facts emerged from the analysis.
  There were 5,333 fires in industrial premises in England and Wales in 1966. Those resulted in an average casualty rate of 6.5 per 100 fires. In Scotland there were 552 similar fires in the same period and those resulted in an average of only 4 casualties per 100 fires—a distinct difference. The FSDG concluded that if present trends continued, England and Wales would suffer an increased casualty rate by the year 2000 with 357 casualties. The analysis showed that, were the Scottish rule to be adopted in England and Wales, the casualty list would drop to only 224. In relation to the Scottish statistics, the FSDG estimated that the Scottish casualty rate would also increase slightly, resulting in 23 casualties. Gloomily, it reckoned that if Scotland were to move to the English and Welsh standards, the casualties would increase to 37. An increase from 24 to 37 is substantial and should urge caution on the Government.
  A similar picture emerges from the statistics on wholesale premises. There, too, the Scottish casualty rates can be shown to be smaller than the English and Welsh ones. It is not unreasonable to be convinced that Scotland is safer in relation to fire than England and Wales. No doubt the picture is less dangerous than those projections show because projections may or may not come to fruition—if that is the right word. It is
  1390
  unlikely—I hope I am right in saying this—that the Government will go the whole hog and apply the English regulations to Scotland wholesale. I hope that the changes will be less wide ranging.
  My question is Unstarred and I must therefore ask it: why make the changes at all? Common sense suggests to me that if any changes are to be made at all, they should be made to the English rules in order to make England safer. Since I lived most of my life in England, I regard that as important. In any case, I remind my noble friend Lord Sewel—lest he overlooks this fact—that, with any luck, Scotland will soon have a new parliament. What will it make of the new proposals if they are passed by a Westminster Parliament before Scotland has had an opportunity to make its own judgment upon them?
  7.39 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for bringing forward this important subject for debate. However, he poses a problem for us in that he has the subject very well in hand. Once he had made his speech and posed his questions there was little that could be said between that and the Minister's response. Therefore, I shall probably not detain your Lordships' for too long. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having referred me to his Unstarred Question of 13th July 1992 which gave me an opportunity fully to understand the background to his Question today. He has been most rigorous in pursuing the matter.
  I am most certainly not an expert in fire safety or fire regulations. Indeed, until last week, I was fairly happily ignorant of them except in as much as I have had tussles with English fire officers from time to time while trying to gain relaxation of one kind or another in the various hotel developments in which I have been involved. However, once my party decided that that qualified me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I made some effort to find out exactly what the subject matter of this Question was about.
  The matter of fire safety is not one that should be taken lightly or with too much humour. I say that because my very first experience of fire safety regulations goes back to the 1970s when a family company which I now own wholly had a hotel just outside Aberfeldy. To our great chagrin the fire regulations were put through and we were forced to spend a considerable sum of money on upgrading the safety of the hotel. However, about three weeks after we had done that we had an accidental fire. Had those regulations not been put through and had we not been obliged to do that work, I am perfectly certain that many of our guests would have died. So, overall, however lightly one may look at some aspects of this matter, the question of fire safety is extremely important and one we should all take very seriously.
  Perhaps I may make one point while going slightly off the subject of Scotland versus England and Wales. What I have noticed when dealing with fire officers in England and Wales is the immense diversity of advice one tends to receive from different fire officers in

  1391
  different areas and the considerable variations with which different fire officers choose to apply the regulations. I am certain they all do it within the latitude which they are given by the law—not for a moment am I suggesting that they step outside the law—but it has always interested me how different fire officers in different areas can make such wide differences of judgment.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for referring me to his debate of 13th July 1992 because I found the answer to my question in the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. He said:
  "The England and Wales approach is based on technical guidance, whereas the others"—
  Scotland and Northern Ireland—
  "set specific technical standards".—[Official Report, 13/7/92; col. 91.]
  While I fully understand that in Scotland and Northern Ireland one knows exactly where one is but one may not be able to do anything about it even if everyone agrees that where one is is not where one ought to be, in England one is able to deal with the regulations in a more flexible manner. I find that on balance, having been an operator both north and south of the Border, it is actually easier to know where one stands without having to debate it with the fire officer. But that is clearly because the approach in England and Wales is based on technical guidance while in Scotland it is based on technical standards.
  The key to the issue is safety. I am able to curtail my remarks because I have kindly been sent the same briefing material that the noble Lord used for giving your Lordships the statistics. I am indebted to Mr. Douglas Smith of the Fire Safety Development Group for those. One phrase in the document struck me:
  "Analysis of the latest Home Office statistics proves that during a fire it is safer to be in Scotland than it is to be in England and Wales".
  If that is the case, then England and Wales should be harmonising themselves with Scotland rather than the other way round.
  Finally, perhaps I may take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, which was eminently sensible. Grâce à Dieu, we are to have a Scottish parliament in the very near future which I believe will be fully empowered to deal with matters of this nature. Therefore, why on earth should the Union Parliament, dominated largely, as it is, by the English, need to bother itself with that? Why not just leave the matter for two years so that we can—me included if I manage to get there—deal with it ourselves?
  7.44 p.m.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for raising this important issue, particularly with respect to the recent consultation paper, Fire Safety Legislation for the Future, which has been out to various interested bodies. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that this is a matter of life and death. The statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, bring home the seriousness of the issue.
  1392
  I know that in England and Wales there is concern over whether there is a need to change the fire regulations. The consultation paper was issued by the Home Office. Surely this should have been done in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which after all is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive and the building regulations division. Fire safety is a complex interaction between design, management and other processes.
  As far as concerns Scotland, in general the proposals in the paper represent a long-awaited move towards proper fire certification. Rationalisation of the current fragmented fire safety law must be an improvement. Policing of such changes would fall on the fire authorities, which are already under severe manpower and budgetary constraints. Will the Government provide extra funding for these changes? I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
  Where existing arrangements in Scotland are adequate, I hope that the Government do not change them just for the sake of change. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the results of the consultation process. How many consultation papers were sent out? Who responded to them and how were they responded to? Did the responses show agreement or did they show concerns? No doubt changes in the fire regulations in England and Wales have been useful. Have those been monitored; and have they been taken into account in the consultation document?
  I shall be most grateful to hear from the Minister any answers he can give me but I am only too willing to have them in writing.
  7.48 p.m.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon on asking what I think is a Question about our intentions. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for their contributions. All brought a particular perspective to our debate. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, spoke about fire safety legislation, which is slightly different from the topic we are dealing with in the debate, which is the building regulations relating to fire in Scotland. If I can help him on the points that he raised I certainly will, but I give no assurance on that whatever.
  My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon should not apologise for raising this issue. It is always a delight to hear my noble friend contribute to our deliberations in this House as we know that we will get a well grounded, knowledge-based and learned contribution, as indeed we had this evening. He tried to take me to task for the failure to monitor the difference between the effect of the English and Welsh regulations and the Scottish regulations. I was not expecting that attack. I shall fall back on the tried and tested formula that it was clearly the fault of the previous Administration in that they did not carry out the monitoring that they said they would. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, will tell his colleagues of the severe reprimand that they have received this evening.

  1393
  To cut through to the gist of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I believe that he is asking me to say whether we have any intention in Scotland to harmonise down to the English and Welsh regulations. We have no plans to do that. I believe that encapsulates the whole point. It is very well known that there are differences in approach between Scotland and England and Wales. The point has been made that in Scotland there are statutory regulations but in England and Wales matters are based on guidance. I shall not go into the precise differences in the content.
  The point was made by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon about the case for harmonisation. In a way there is an attractive case to be made there. Clearly, designers wishing to work throughout the United Kingdom have to familiarise themselves with the differences in regulations.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, that point has been put to me in the past; namely, that designers and architects working throughout the United Kingdom would be obliged to familiarise themselves with separate regulations. I find that very difficult. I spent many years as a civil engineer doing just that. I dealt with the different requirements in England and Scotland and in various other parts of the world. It does not cause the slightest bother. It is quite simple: one just reads the regulations and applies them.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that my noble friend has heard that argument before. I very much suspect that those who wrote my brief for tonight wrote my ministerial predecessor's brief in 1992!
  I was trying to set up an Aunt Sally which I would then knock down and say that it is an argument that has been advanced in the past. But I find it particularly unpersuasive. There are occasions and cases where it is quite legitimate to have different standards and regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, indicated in the context of a Scottish parliament, that kind of situation may arise more often and across a wider range of topics.
  However, I say quite clearly that there have been recent amendments to Scottish technical standards and they have been relatively minor technical adjustments. They have not sought to bring about the harmonising down which my noble friend Lord Howie indicated.
  The process of harmonisation of the building standards of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is a joint process. In a way it is intended to the extent that harmonisation is attractive. It is intended that the best aspects of each set of regulations are retained. I believe that harmonisation is very much a two-way process. It is our hope that the new approved document will lead to greater harmonisation with Scotland. I use that sense of direction quite deliberately. There may well be a case here for harmonisation to be towards the Scottish practice rather than in the other direction. In this brief contribution I hope that I have dealt with the points made.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree with me that,
  1394
  notwithstanding the comments he made about my speech as regards fire safety as opposed to fire regulations, they are inextricably linked?
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, speaking on the basis of my knowledge and experience, I shall require notice of that question. I take the point. The contribution made by the noble Earl to the discussion was an important one. As I said, I shall come back to him in areas where I can assist. I hope that I have dealt with the various issues raised in the debate.
  Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene. I believe that the House will be very glad to welcome the assurance given by my noble friend that the Government and our party, if I may put it on that basis, have no intention of reducing fire safety through the harmonisation of regulations. We have heard similar sentiments from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. We do not know which political party is going to be in control of the new Scottish parliament either initially or in the future. Is it pertinent at this point to ask for assurances from the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, speaking for the Conservatives, that his party will ensure that the regulations will not be harmonised downwards and that any harmonisation that that party seeks will be in an upward direction?
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is not possible for me to reply on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. As regards the point about control of the Scottish parliament, I say to my noble friend Lord Monkswell, ye of little faith. Let us deal with that issue somewhat later in the week.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.30 p.m.]

  National Minimum Wage Bill
  House again in Committee.
  Clause 10 [Worker's right of access to records]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a worker shall be entitled, on written request, to be supplied by his employer with a copy of any relevant records within twenty-eight days of receipt by the employer of that request.").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 69, I should like to speak to all of the amendments to this clause which stand in my name. I refer to Amendments Nos. 69 to 75 and 77 to 79. This clause involves a matter of major constitutional importance, one which seems to have been totally overlooked by the author of the clause. I do not say that in any recriminatory sense because my honourable friends in the other place also seem to have missed this point. The

  1395
  15 minutes of debate in Committee in the other place were confined to matters of definition and detail about certain aspects of the clause. The purpose of the clause is to give the employee the right of access to records relating to his pay and hours so that he can be satisfied that he has been correctly paid at least the statutory minimum wage. That is wholly unobjectionable and the Opposition unreservedly accept that the employee should have that perfectly proper and reasonable right.
  The constitutional objection arises from the method by which the Government are proposing that that right is to be exercised. It is a method that is totally inappropriate for what is, after all, the pursuit of a civil claim for redress for a financial wrong. It begins with the employee issuing his own search warrant. In Clause 10(5) it is euphemistically called a "production notice". Who else can march into someone's premises without the intervention of a judge or a magistrate and conduct what amounts to a search? The answer is only the Customs and Excise in relation to VAT; the Inland Revenue in relation to certain aspects of income tax, corporation tax and PAYE, and the Department of Social Security in relation to national insurance records. All of those are powers conferred specifically by Parliament to protect the public revenue.
  Under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the home of a person in custody for an arrestable offence can be searched without a magistrate's warrant. In the case of civil disputes and claims, there is a mutual right of inspection of documents, but that is in the process called "discovery", given by order of the court under the court rules. There is only one instance where claimants can obtain a unilateral right to inspect, copy and, indeed, impound documents and records from the other party—and that is pursuant to what is called an Anton Piller order. It is given ex parte by the judge without the respondent being aware of it. It is given only at the discretion of the judge where he is satisfied, from evidence on oath, that there is a risk that evidential documents may be destroyed or tampered with and that the interests of justice leave no alternative.
  The order is hedged around with stringent conditions, of which I shall mention just some. The order has to be served on the respondent in the presence of a wholly independent supervising solicitor, experienced in handling Anton Piller orders, who has to see that the matter is dealt with in a proper manner. Where the premises to be searched are likely to be occupied by an unaccompanied woman, unless the supervising solicitor is a woman, one of the persons attending the service of the process must be a woman. The respondent is entitled to ensure that, except for a named person, nobody is present who could gain a commercial advantage from anything that he might see or read; and so on, and so on.
  Perhaps I may repeat—it cannot be emphasised too strongly—that what the Government are proposing is that a person merely has to allege that he has a claim for a civil debt and he shall then have the totally unprecedented right to enter the premises of a third party, and then the right to stay there for virtually as long as he chooses while he conducts a search through that party's books and records. What the Government
  1396
  have proposed in this case is that on 14 days' notice the employee may march into the employer's business premises—
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for interrupting the constitutional flow, but could the noble Baroness identify where the "right" to enter premises comes from, where the "right" to stay in the premises comes from and why if documents are not produced, the remedy is not marching in; it is a complaint to an employment tribunal?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: If the noble and learned Lord will give me a moment, I shall find the appropriate provision in Clause 10. Subsection (1) states:
  "A worker may, in accordance with the following provisions of this section,—

  (a) require his employer to produce any relevant records; and

  (b) inspect and examine those records and copy any part of them".

  There is no indication of any other way in which the worker may gain access to the records. Indeed, subsection (8) states:
  "The place at which the relevant records are produced must be—

  (a) the worker's place of work; or

  (b) any other place at which it is reasonable, in all the circumstances, for the worker to attend to inspect the relevant records; or

  (c) such other place as may be agreed between the worker and the employer".

  Subsection (9) then refers to the number of days involved.
  As far as I can see, the clause suggests that the worker has the right to enter "the place" and to see the records. I repeat that subsection (8)(b) states:
  "in all the circumstances, for the worker to attend to inspect the relevant records".
  Perhaps I may continue with what I was saying. What the Government have proposed in this case is that on 14 days' notice, the employee may march into the employer's business premises—the noble and learned Lord will not like what I am going to say next because my notes continue—and "ransack" his records. At any rate, it appears that the employee will certainly have a right to look through the records, possibly in front of a shop full of customers. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but that is what the clause states. It states that the employee can go into the premises and inspect—
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble and learned Lord will have plenty of opportunity to argue his case when he responds to my amendment.
  Admittedly, subsection (8) refers to a "reasonable" place—again, we have the word "reasonable"—but that is not defined. It will be a brave employer who decides that his solicitor's or accountant's office in the next town or across the other side of London is the most "reasonable" place for that.

  1397
  Admittedly, subsection (7) refers to a "reasonable … time". However, would, say, 9 p.m. or some time on a Sunday afternoon be accepted by a court as "reasonable" even if that is the time that is least disruptive and least embarrassing to the employer, particularly in the case of a shop which may be full of customers at any other time?
  Then, there is all the complicated palaver in this clause about the employee being accompanied by a person of his choice. Who, might I ask, is the "worker's friend" to be? It was suggested in the other place that it might be none other than his Member of Parliament—nothing is impossible, I suppose—or someone from the local citizen's advice bureau. Equally, it could be a large chap with a broken nose and a Rottweiler on a chain whose purpose is to intimidate the employer. I do not believe that this is a laughing matter. There might be a series of visits by one employee after another, without any real cause for complaint as it transpires, whose intent is to disrupt the employer. That may be termed a new form of work to rule. It may even be a local trade union official with a separate agenda who conducts a fishing expedition or a recruiting drive. It could even be a competitor, which would be a very serious matter for any business.
  The very nature of the employer's records, whether kept on a computer or on paper, means that the person who inspects them is likely to see irrelevant confidential information relating to other employees. The essential point is that, unlike the inspection of documents carried out pursuant to a court order in civil proceedings, there is no sanction against improper disclosure of information. There are already situations in which under the Data Protection Act a person can demand to see records pertaining to himself held by a third party. I am entitled to obtain copies of information held about me in almost any computer in the country. One is talking about copies on paper sent by mail or messenger. I am not entitled to barge into my bank, building society or the offices of a credit agency brandishing a do-it-yourself search warrant and accompanied by a personal minder.
  I am entitled to be supplied with a record, in writing, of my treatment in a National Health Service hospital, not by personally inspecting the hospital's and doctor's notes. Under the Companies Acts I am entitled to demand an up-to-date list of shareholders, not merely the possibly obsolete one on file at Companies House in Cardiff. To obtain that information I do not even have to be a shareholder, but I cannot insist on personally accessing the company secretary's computer.
  These are the correct precedents to be followed when considering a demand for copy records to be supplied in writing within a reasonable time and at no cost to the employee. This amendment gives the employee access to all the information to which he is justifiably entitled without all the cumbersome, bureaucratic and inappropriate procedures that this Bill proposes.
  I started moving this amendment by referring to a constitutional issue. With the exception of the cases authorised by Parliament to which I referred earlier, no one should be entitled to demand access to someone
  1398
  else's premises without a lawful warrant granted by an impartial member of the judiciary. I believe that, if an Englishman's home is his castle, so to no lesser extent is his place of business.
  Because of the considerable constitutional importance of this clause I apologise for having taken up so much of the Committee's time in explaining the background to the amendment that I move. As briefly as possible I should now like to explain each amendment in detail. One needs to look line by line at the more objectionable and draconian provisions of this clause. I shall speak to them in the order in which they appear on the list. The proposed new subsection in Amendment No. 69 rectifies a number of deficiencies in the present provision. The present clause does not specify the form that the employee's requirement should take. Can it be simply oral, face-to-face or even by telephone? To require it to be in writing places it beyond argument that the demand has actually been made. I believe that 28 days rather than 14 days is a reasonable time for a notice by an employee, bearing in mind that an employer may have his records maintained by accountants or a PAYE agency or those records may be in the middle of an annual audit. What happens if the employee makes his demand on Christmas Eve, when the entire country appears to have developed the habit of closing down for two weeks?
  I would not dream of diminishing the complaint of a worker who believed that he had been underpaid. However, there is not the degree of urgency that the subsection implies. Therefore, I believe that 28 days instead of 14 days would not make any practical difference. Most important of all, the method by which the employer provides the records should be in writing, not by production on the employer's premises or some other place nominated by the employer under subsection (7). I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I have already advanced in relation to that point. It is sufficient to say that, as a matter of principle, an employee, or one employee after another, or possibly an employee who has been dismissed for good cause, should not have the right to come back on to the employer's premises perhaps in a disruptive or confrontational manner.
  As to Amendment No. 70, there can be no possible objection to an employee being required to place on record the date on which he makes his request so as to place beyond argument the time from which the time limits prescribed by the Bill begin to run. Nor can there be any objection to an employee specifying the period in which he is interested. There is nothing to prevent the employee specifying the period to be from the commencement of his employment to the present date. Equally, there is no reason why the employee should be required to guess the period which is the subject of the dispute. After all, even a real search warrant issued by a magistrate must inform the recipient specifically as to what the searchers are looking for. This amendment proposes the removal of the right of the employee to demand to come on to the employer's premises or some other place, possibly accompanied by a total stranger whose part in the matter may well be dubious or at least

  1399
  unclear. Instead, the employer is to be obliged to provide copies of the records in writing which the employee and any number of so-called advisers can examine at their leisure. There is nothing in the present clause to prevent a disruptive or vengeful employee keeping the employer hanging around for hours while he conducts a gigantic filibuster and pretends to examine the records.
  Amendment No. 71 seeks to delete subsection (5). That provision gives the employee the unprecedented right to issue what amounts to a home-made search warrant. If the method of providing the records to which the employee is entitled is in writing, by photocopies, and so on, all the paraphernalia of so-called production notices and the procedural regulations in subsections (6) to (8) is entirely superfluous. The amendments that remove those subsections are Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 74. Subsection (9) is also superfluous because the time limit for providing the written record is covered by the new subsection (1). That is removed by Amendment No. 75.
  Amendment No. 77 substitutes a written request—that is, one demanding copies of the relevant records—in place of the objectionable search warrant which is euphemistically called a production notice. Amendment No. 78 introduces the word "directly" before "relevant" in referring to the records that an employee requires to see in order to establish the employee's pay. The word "directly" is simply to ensure that the employee and his advisers cannot go on a general fishing expedition. What is directly relevant are the hours worked by the employer and what he or she has been paid for them. What is not directly relevant, for example, is what the person working alongside the employee was paid for the same work.
  This amendment is only a matter of emphasis. The employee must get the information that he needs to establish whether or not he has a claim. But what he should not demand is information that is not relevant to that objective. The amendment places a limit on the word "relevant" so that it is not widened to whatever remote piece of data someone can dream up. We do not want to see the harassment of employers by continual, ever-escalating and time-consuming demands for what in civil litigation are called further and better particulars.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Where does the noble Baroness imagine that the employee would be able to go on a fishing expedition to discover everything and anything that is not relevant? Does not the clause specifically subscribe to the point I have made? The information has to be relevant.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: It has to be directly relevant to what the employee is looking for. If the noble Lord says that "relevant" states that, he will have no objection to the provision including "directly relevant".
  Amendment No. 79 is a purely drafting amendment. It removes a possible ambiguity which establishes that the "worker" concerned is the one who has put the
  1400
  machinery into motion by making the request in subsection (1). That is precisely what is meant, so why not say so clearly? I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for the opportunity of perhaps dissipating a number of the misconceptions which underlay the moving of those amendments.
  I think we would all agree that it is of considerable importance that the employee has some right of access to the records of the employer. It would also be sensibly agreed by all that the right of access of that employee should be only in relation to records relevant to establishing whether or not he is being paid the national minimum wage. I should have thought that everyone would agree that he should have no right of access unless he can establish reasonable grounds for claiming that he may not be being paid the national minimum wage.
  I think we would also all agree that the arrangements made for the employee to look at the records should be convenient both to the employer and employee. By that I mean, first, that the employee should in the appropriate case be allowed to look at the records; and, secondly, that where appropriate he should be accompanied by someone who might help explain to him what the records mean. Many of the people wishing to enforce the national minimum wage may not readily understand what the employer's records contain.
  I think we would also all agree that it would be quite inappropriate for the employee to have a right to go into the employer's premises and look around in relation to particular records. We would all agree, however, that some sort of remedy should be given. We need to balance the right of the employer against the right of the employee.
  As regards enforcement of that right, the balance is tipped, if anything, in favour of the employer. The only remedy that the employee has is to go to an industrial tribunal and seek a declaration that the rights given in Section 10 have not been complied with. The only remedy that the employment tribunal can give is to award the employee 80 times the national minimum wage. So the right given to the employee is less than the right given in ordinary civil litigation in this country where a person fails to produce a written document. If the other party does not produce the written document, the person against whom the order is made can eventually be committed to prison. There is no such provision here.
  The fallacy which underlay the whole of the first sequence of the noble Baroness's approach was that the employee could go into the employer's premises and search around for himself. That is wrong. The position is this. A production notice can be given. That requires the employer to do certain things including providing certain documents. If, however, the employer does not comply with that, that does not as a matter of law give the employee the right to go into the premises. It only gives the employee the right to make a complaint to an employment tribunal under Clause 11.

  1401
  Let us assume that I am right on that aspect. The noble Baroness will need time to consider whether I am right in relation to that because of the vigour with which the point was made against me. With respect, that would get rid of the major constitutional problem to which the noble Baroness referred in the first 10 minutes of her opening remarks. Assuming that I am right in relation to that, we should then consider the detail of the points she makes about the way that this right, which we all agree should exist, has been constructed.
  We have sought to achieve a balance between the rights of workers, some of whom, for example, home workers, may be in the more vulnerable position of not having representation or contacts with other firms, and the rights of other employers. We fully accept that the enforcement should not be overburdensome. That is why in subsections (2) and (3) the Bill makes it clear that the right of access is already limited: for example, the worker must have reasonable grounds for believing that he is or has been paid less than the minimum. The intention of this provision is to cut out frivolous or vexatious claims. In addition, the right of access may be exercised only for the purpose of establishing whether the worker is being or has been paid at least the minimum.
  Finally, the worker must produce a written notice—defined in the Bill as a "production notice"—requesting the production of the relevant records. Noble Lords may wish to note that, to this extent, the requirement of the amendments for a written notice to be produced adds nothing to the Bill that is not already there.
  Clause 10 as it stands also allows a degree of flexibility, for example in agreeing a different period—longer than the specified 14 days—for the production of records, under subsection (9)(b).
  Finally, the clause provides for workers actually to inspect records and to be accompanied if they wish. I believe this is an important entitlement which will encourage workers to exercise their rights and discourage some employers who may be tempted to use unfair tactics of dissuasion.
  It is worth emphasising that the overall purpose of this and other enforcement mechanisms is to encourage self-compliance. It is far preferable, if at all possible, to encourage employers to comply voluntarily than to have to provide for a huge bureaucracy to do so. Furthermore, by allowing workers to inspect records it should be possible to prevent cases of simple confusion or misunderstanding. This in itself should help keep cases out of the tribunals and the courts.
  The amendments would significantly weaken the position of the worker for no particular reason. In addressing them, I shall aim to focus on three main issues: the removal, by Amendment No. 56 and related amendments, of the worker's right to inspect and examine his records; the removal of the right to be accompanied; and the lengthening of the time in which records must be produced to 28 days.
  Taking these points in turn, I believe that it is essential to the enforcement provisions for a worker to have the right to inspect records. Of course, in many cases that right will be met by the employer providing
  1402
  the worker with a copy of the records as they relate to him. I imagine that will in fact be the normal way to proceed. However, it is a regrettable fact that some employers may fail to provide the right records or may wish to conceal relevant records. It must be right to enable a worker, in such cases, to go to the source data; and indeed in all other proceedings that right is recognised.
  I do not believe that the Bill allows this right to be abused. I doubt that there will be long lines of employees queuing to inspect their relevant records in person. Subsection (2) already makes it clear that the worker must have reasonable grounds to exercise the right.
  Therefore, the replacement of the right of access with a right to a copy of records would, in my view, unacceptably weaken the enforcement provisions of the Bill.
  This batch of amendments hanging on Amendment No. 69 would also remove the worker's right to be accompanied when examining the records. As already mentioned, this right is essential to prevent some employers from fobbing off their workers or from pulling the wool over their eyes. I do not believe there will be many such cases, but the option to be accompanied provides a reasonable deterrent.
  There is also a pragmatic reason for this provision. Some of the calculations of remuneration for minimum wage purposes may not be at all straightforward. Some workers may feel more confident if they can call on a colleague with particular accounting or legal expertise. The outcome should assist understanding of the position and, to the extent that there may have been an innocent misunderstanding, should encourage early resolution of the problem.
  Finally, the amendments would double the amount of time allowed to an employer to produce the records from 14 to 28 days.
  There seems to be no particular reason for this proposal. It seems to me that any reasonable employer would be able to produce records relating to how much he pays his staff within a fortnight. Subsection (9) of the clause, in any event, allows the worker and employer to agree between them to an extension of the deadline if that is appropriate. So we have already built in more than sufficient flexibility for employers and employees.
  That leads me to Amendment No. 75. Not all the amendments act in the interest of the employer. This amendment deletes subsection (9). It would therefore actually remove the right for the worker and employer to reach an agreement on a longer timescale.
  Other amendments in this batch seem to work in the interest of neither worker nor employer. They simply remove straightforward provisions relating to the period of notice to be given and the location of the records.
  It is clear from the speech of the noble Baroness that all of the amendments are, with the greatest respect, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the position, which is that it gave the employee the right to walk into the premises. It does not. Once that is accepted the fundamental basis of the amendments goes.

  1403
  I strongly doubt that the removal of such provisions as the latter parts of the amendments does anything but weaken the effectiveness of the clause. As I have indicated, we have designed the clause to be effective in a balanced way; not in order to overburden or punish employers or to give employees rights way beyond what is reasonable. It is in everyone's interests, workers and employers, for enforcement to be fair and, in particular, for enforcement to be effective.
  I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that Clause 10 is perfectly adequate as it stands and that the amendments would not benefit the Bill. I hope that I have set the noble Baroness's mind at rest as to what she perceived, wrongly, as a constitutional outrage. If pressed I would ask the Committee to reject Amendment No. 69, but I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I have listened with great interest to my noble friend's speech and the noble and learned Lord's reply. I have read through Clause 10 three or four times and I have come to exactly the same conclusion as my noble friend. I am not saying that I have a bright brain, but if I have come to that conclusion surely there must be an element of doubt about it. It is weighted against the employer.
  I am not saying that the legislation should be weighted in favour of the employer and against the employee. I am looking for balance. I understand that the noble and learned Lord has said that balance is being sought, but the wording in this clause causes me to Worry.
  One of the noble and learned Lord's points was that in most cases the employer would produce the information in written form to the employee. Nowhere in Clause 10 does it actually say that that would be an option. The noble and learned Lord said that in most cases it would be a fait accompli, whereby the request would be made in writing and the information would be given back in writing. If so, why are there all these subsections of an intimidatory nature necessary?
  There are occasions in commercial life where employees who might have been dismissed or made redundant have a deep-seated spite against their former employer. They would latch on to this. The place is littered with consultants and lawyers—with due respect to the lawyers present—who would be only too pleased to grab such a case and go to the employer's premises. I wonder why there is this deep-seated regret at not accepting these amendments. It leaves a problem. I am not convinced about the matter. One can imagine the example given by my noble friend of heavies going in with a disaffected employee and causing chaos within an organisation.
  The second point concerns subsection (9)—before the end of a period of 14 days. The Minister drew attention to paragraph (b):
  "at such later time as may be agreed during the period between the worker and the employer".
  1404
  Returning to the point about the Christmas period, we all know that the Christmas period is not 14 days but extends in a lot of cases to three weeks. There would be merit in looking at the 14 days again.
  Viscount Bridgeman: I am the third speaker from this side to feel that this clause does not give protection in a difficult case. Why do we not follow the more usual procedure in the Data Protection Act of the data being produced by the employer? The employer will receive notice. What will he do? In many cases he will have to filter information which is confidential to himself and to which the employee is not entitled. He will have to sift that information from the rest. As to the production of copies, why can they not be produced to the employee as in the Data Protection Act?
  I share the feelings of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that the presence of a helper is slightly intimidatory, and that could be the case under this clause. I am worried that the production notice is a do-it-yourself warrant. There is no recourse to industrial tribunals in this clause. It gives the employee the right effectively to write his own warrant and go in. That also ought to be tightened up.
  Viscount Thurso: I listened with great interest to the argument, which was not one that I anticipated. Having looked at the group of amendments, I thought that there would be a debate between the two Dispatch Boxes. However, having listened to the comments of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, I must say that as an employer I do not see the problem that is being put forward. To draw a comparison between a production notice and a search warrant is stretching things a little too far.
  Perhaps I may refer the Committee to subsection (7), which states:
  "Where a production notice is given, the employer shall give the worker reasonable notice of the place and time at which the relevant records will he produced".
  If that provision relates to a search warrant there is something a little odd. The employer is telling the employee after having received a notice where the employee can receive it. I believe that the drafting is not as weak as has been made out and therefore do not wish to support the amendments.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If I believed that the clause legitimately gave rise to the concerns expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, or the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I would be equally concerned. However, I genuinely believe that the clause does not give rise to such concerns.
  Perhaps I may deal with the specific points that have been made. Both speeches referred to the document as being a "search warrant". What I regard as the essence of objectionability about a search warrant, like an Anton Piller order referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is that it effectively prevents the owner, renter, or occupier of the property entering and looking at his records. There is no element of that in this case.

  1405
  Where a production notice is produced by the employee, the employer tells the employee where the employee can look at the records. It is the employer's choice, so long as he is reasonable, to decide. It does not have to be at the premises; he can choose somewhere else for the employee to look at the records. I draw the Committee's attention to subsection (8), which states:
  "The place at which the relevant records are produced must be…the worker's place of work; or … any other place at which it is reasonable, in all the circumstances, for the worker to attend to inspect the relevant records; or … such other place as maybe agreed".
  Therefore, if the employer has a good case for saying that it should not be the place of work, he can say, "This is a reasonable place for you to come". He has 14 days in which to ensure that the employee sees only his own records and the appropriate records.
  If the employer were minded to disobey the law there is nothing the employee can do except make a complaint to the employment tribunal. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said that he saw no reference to an employment tribunal in Clause 10. That is because it is in Clause 11. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said that it was intimidatory to allow an employee to bring a companion with him. Think how intimidatory it might be for an employee to be told by his personnel officer, "Here are your records. You sort out whether you have been paid the national minimum wage". I can see that there may be cases in which it might be difficult, but surely a balance must be struck to make the provision work properly.
  I would fully appreciate the concerns if they were justified, but I respectfully submit to the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, who made good speeches outlining their concerns, that if they look at the provisions they will see that they are properly balanced. They do not constitute a search warrant. They do not allow someone to go mad with someone else's records. However, they represent a sensible means of trying to make the Bill enforceable in a way that does not involve too many lawyers or the employee being easily fobbed off by the employer. And there will be employers who wish to try to deprive employees of their right to the national minimum wage.
  I earnestly ask the noble Baroness to reconsider the points that she has raised. We have thought about them genuinely and sought to reach a balance.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I readily accept that the Minister does not have the concerns that I believe he ought to have. I also accept that if he did have such concerns he would deal with them as I have suggested. Therefore, I do not suggest that the Minister does not believe that what he is saying is correct.
  I should like to move on and repeat what the noble and learned Lord said to me. He imagines that in most cases, those things will be dealt with by a copy of the records. That may well be so; but it may well not be so. There is no provision in Clause 10 that suggests that that is the way to deal with the matter.
  1406
  I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister said. But at this stage I should indicate to him that, while I shall withdraw my amendment, I am not particularly satisfied with his answer. He has tried very hard to be helpful but I am not sure I agree with what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 70 to 75 not moved.]
  9.15 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 8, line 19, at end insert ("during the paid contractual working hours of the employee").
  The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 87. Having listened to the previous debate, which ran for some 45 hard minutes, and was quite fascinating, I am now approaching this amendment from a diametrically opposite point of view. It reflects a general concern that, to a certain extent, employers have the upper hand. I seek to make sure that employees are properly protected and have sufficient access.
  I deal first with Amendment No. 76. In my mind, for reasons which will become plain in a moment, I have nicknamed this the "night porter" amendment, and I shall explain that to the Committee as I go along.
  Clause 10 generally provides a worker with the right to see records and sets out the manner in which and the places at which those records may be produced, specifically through the production notice. Subsections (7), (8) and (9) deal with the how, where and when of that. Subsection (9) in particular deals with when those records should be produced.
  This amendment seeks to add to the burden on employers by providing that the information should be delivered during the paid contractual working hours of the employee. I remind the Committee that I am an employer and I feel slightly schizophrenic because I am never sure whether I am looking at this matter from my point of view or that of my workers. However, I am trying to look at situations when what I do as an employer, my actions, may make life difficult for my employees.
  I then came up with the example of the night porter at Champneys. Let us take him as an example. He begins work at 11 p.m. and finishes work at 8 a.m. the following morning. Those are his contracted hours. If that employee lives 45 minutes away—that is not unreasonable because it takes one into north London—it is quite reasonable to imagine that he is never at Champneys at a time at which it is convenient for the office staff to give him information.
  I believe that it is more important for employees to have the right, particularly if no one else is on duty for those hours, to have available information delivered to them at that point, since I have many other employees who I can engage to make that information available to such employees. That should be done rather than obliging employees, at their own cost, to drive all the way back to come to my premises during my hours of work to suit me.
  This is by way of a probing amendment, but it has a great deal of merit. I hope that the Government will look at it quite favourably. It is important to bear in mind that, whereas the vast majority of employees work relatively straightforward shifts, there are a number of employees in a number of industries who work odd shifts. We should not forget them in looking at what it is reasonable to expect them to do.
  Amendment No. 87 is along the same lines but a little bit different. Clause 14 describes the power of an officer and subsection (3) sets out the way in which that officer may give notice. On a number of occasions I have listened to debates in committee where there has been a definition of the word "reasonable". The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General has said on a number of occasions that he does not, under any circumstances, wish to invite a court to decide. He said that that was the last thing that he would wish. And yet Clause 14(3) states:
  "The powers conferred by subsection (1) above include power, on reasonable written notice, to require a relevant person",
  but there is no definition of the word "reasonable".
  In this case it is obviously the notice given by the officer to the employer but it has an effect on the employee. Therefore, we merely seek to suggest that it would be reasonable to define the length of time. Indeed, the amendment suggests that "reasonable written notice" should be defined as a period of 14 days or,
  "at some later time as may be agreed between the officer and employer".
  I should be grateful if the Government would look reasonably sympathetically at both my amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising these two points. I am sympathetic to both principles which underlie the amendments. However, I do not think that they are either necessary or appropriate for the Bill. The purpose of Amendment No. 76 is plain to see, although, as a matter of drafting, it would not achieve its aim. But that does not really matter. I believe that the noble Viscount is trying to introduce the requirement that one must produce records relating to an individual employee during his working hours. Therefore, if the person concerned was the night porter at Champneys, the records would probably have to be produced between something like seven in the evening and seven in the morning.
  I can see the sense of that from the point of view of the employee, although, as an employer, the noble Viscount might be a little irritated if a person in his personnel office had to wait until three o'clock in the morning just to give someone like a night porter his records. We hope that employers and employees will reach sensible agreements as to when this should be done. However, if we insert a provision stating that this must happen during the working hours of the employee, that would be overly prescriptive in a situation where co-operation between worker and employer is so important.
  1408
  On some occasions it may suit both parties to see the records at a time which is outside the working hours of the individual concerned. We do not believe that that should be prevented by law, which would be the effect of the amendment. Therefore, although we are sympathetic to the idea, we believe it to be over- prescriptive. With that understanding, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.
  Amendment No. 87 relates to the power of an enforcement officer in performing his duties to require a person to produce records, an explanation or additional information on "reasonable written notice". So we are now talking about a different clause from that which applies to Amendment No. 76, which relates to the employee's own request where the time is specified. This amendment defines what is to constitute "reasonable written notice" in relation to this power. The amendment says that that would normally be 14 days or, where agreed, up to a month.
  There is nothing wrong in principle with defining the amount of notice required. But, again, as with the noble Viscount's other amendment, we think that it is overly prescriptive. Surely the time will vary having regard to the particular request made. This is not as limited as the individual employee's request: this relates to an enforcement officer. "Reasonableness" is a well understood term and we do not need to tie it down to a specific time frame in primary legislation. Indeed, we do not believe that it would be appropriate.
  The noble Viscount made a rather effective teasing point about the fact that I had repeatedly said that it would be wrong to refer to "reasonableness" in the context of the legislation. When I say that, I am referring to issues where the Minister is producing regulations. In that case, it is not appropriate for the courts to get into the question of reasonableness. However, where we are dealing with the powers of an enforcement officer to give notice to citizens, then it most surely is appropriate that the word "reasonable" should be inserted, so that the very point can be tested by the courts. I should say that that might have been a teasing point rather than a serious one. Nevertheless, I thought that I would answer it. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Thurso: Perhaps I may, first, take the noble and learned Lord's last point. It was a little bit of a tease but not wholly so. I am a little worried about the concept that we must not do anything to allow Ministers to be reasonable because they are, so to speak, inherently unreasonable but that somehow or other enforcement officers will always be reasonable. That is quite a dubious and debatable point. However, I do not wish to go into it tonight.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is because Ministers will always be reasonable but enforcement officers may not that one has to add the word "reasonable".
  Viscount Thurso: I shall accept the tease and move on.
  As regards the response to my Amendment No. 76, there is an important point of principle here. While I am most grateful to the Minister for his response and have no doubt that we are singing off the same hymn sheet, if a slightly different tune—I am singing in descant probably—the point of principle is that it has been my experience that in British industry generally there is a large number of good employers who have superb human resources departments and for whom the vast majority of this Bill is an irrelevance because they pay way above the minimum wage and they play by the book. I remember a few days ago the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said in this Chamber that British Airways had a 2 per cent. turnover rate. I have been depressed since I heard that because I thought my turnover rate was rather good but it is considerably higher than that.
  There is a certain number of employers—British Airways is certainly one of them—who undoubtedly have great human resources departments and who practise good labour relations. However, I use a phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, used in a debate on management education—despite that head there is a long tail of employers who do not follow the rules and who do not play by the book and who are bad employers. I believe that this legislation is not aimed at my business or British Airways but at those bad businesses who genuinely exploit employees, who pay poor wages, and where poor conditions and bad management conspire to make life pretty intolerable for the people employed. While I have a natural interest, as it were, in protecting employers, in this Chamber my concern is with employees. As regards some of the bad employers, I do not accept that they will necessarily be reasonable. I do not accept that they will not make it difficult for a night porter or a night security guard to exercise his or her rights.
  I shall certainly withdraw Amendment No. 76. However, I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said and I wish to read what he has said and perhaps discuss it with him. I totally accept that the drafting of the amendment is wrong. I decided that the drafting was wrong before I rose to speak. I believe I have put the words in the wrong place. I accept that. However, the Government may be persuaded that what I seek to do is not such a bad idea after all. Perhaps at a later stage the Government may even produce an amendment of their own. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 not moved.]
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Failure of employer to allow access to records]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 80:
  Page 8, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert ("failed to supply a copy of some or all of the relevant records in accordance with subsection (1) of section 10 above").
  The noble Baroness said: I shall not move this amendment because I believe it is rather closely connected with Clause 10 and a written notice.
  [Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 81:
  Page 8, line 40, leave out ("shall").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 81 to 85 seek to modify the totally unyielding provisions on penalties for breaches of this part of the Bill. It seems to be the philosophy of the Government that there should be no discretion whatsoever available to those responsible for administering the Bill, whether it be the Secretary of State in deciding whether there should be any exceptions to the right to receive the national minimum wage or as regards those who are exercising a judicial function in fixing penalties. Other than in the case of someone convicted of murder, every judge and every magistrate has a discretion about a penalty to be fixed. Even in the case of drunk driving, which carries a fixed automatic penalty of disqualification, there is a right for the magistrate or judge not to impose it if there are what are called special reasons, rare though they may be.
  In this case what the Government are asking for is for the tribunal to act as a rubber stamp, with absolutely no discretion to ameliorate the penalties, no matter what the mitigating circumstances might be. I think it would be advisable for the Secretary of State to book a ticket to Strasbourg, where she will undoubtedly soon find herself in front of the European Court of Human Rights if the Bill is passed in its present form.
  Our Amendment No. 82 proposes leaving out the word "shall" in line 40 and moving it to line 41, so that the wording will still be:
  "the tribunal shall make a declaration …"
  But then we propose to insert the word "may"—this is Amendment No. 83—at the beginning of the phrase in paragraph (b); in other words, the tribunal may make an award. It enables the tribunal to make the same declaration as the Bill proposes. It merely alters Clause 11(2)(b) to give the tribunal a discretion as to the amount of any penalty that it fixes.
  Amendments Nos. 84 and 85, when taken together with Amendments Nos. 81 to 83, would now make the whole clause read:
  "Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under this section well founded, the tribunal—

  (a) shall make a declaration to that effect; and

  (b) may make an award that the employer pay the worker such sum not exceeding 80 times the hourly amount of the national minimum wage (as in force when the award is made) as it considers just and equitable having regard to the employer's default."

  I hope that my putting together into one package all these fragmentary amendments will be of assistance to your Lordships in understanding what I am getting at. It has certainly helped me.
  As the Bill stands, an inadvertent failure to produce a single sheet of paper or a few hours' extra delay or a problem caused perhaps by illness will without consideration of any mitigating factors result in an

  1411
  automatic draconian fixed penalty. On the lowest forecast of what the national minimum wage may be, this could result in a fine in the region of some £288: enough to put a small shop out of business.
  We sometimes read of a person convicted of manslaughter not being imprisoned. Is the crime of not giving a worker his due in an administrative matter so heinous that absolutely no mercy can be shown, no matter what the circumstances might be? Is the Secretary of State frightened that those she appoints to her tribunals might actually apply some common sense in cases where the circumstances require it?
  The final amendment, No. 86, is simply consequential upon some amendments which your Lordships might have considered in Clause 10—but I shall not move that amendment either.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Monson: I very much agree with Amendments Nos. 81 to 85 inclusive and I think that the noble Baroness has made out an excellent case, and so there is no point in my repeating the excellent arguments she has already made. Let us suppose that 80 times the minimum wage equates to £280. May I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer: can the sum of £280 be set off against gross profits for corporation tax purposes? Secondly, is the £280 taxable in the hands of the employee? Thirdly, is national insurance payable on the £280 by both the employee and the employer? Finally, in the event that the minimum wage for those under 26 or under 21, or whatever the watershed may turn out to be in the end, equates to 90 per cent., let us say, of the minimum wage for older workers, will the sum payable be reduced accordingly?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These amendments, as the noble Baroness has made clear, relate to Clause 11, which concerns the failure of an employer to allow access to records and the awards that can be made by employment tribunals in that event, as well as the period for bringing a complaint. The critical amendment is Amendment No. 83, which removes the obligation for the employment tribunal to make an award to the employer if a complaint is well founded. Instead, it says that a tribunal may make such an award. Amendment No. 84 takes the proposed discretionary power a step further, in that it gives the tribunal the option of awarding less than the full amount, which is currently set at 80 times the hourly national minimum wage rate, to be paid by the employer to the worker. Amendment No. 85 is linked with the discretionary notion, as it gives the tribunal the right to consider what is just and equitable.
  As I explained during the course of debate on Clause 10, the only means of enforcing the right given in Clause 10 is by a complaint to an employment tribunal. The employment tribunal can, if the complaint is well-founded, make a declaration that an employer has not complied with his obligation under Clause 10 and then, in an attempt to obtain enforcement, make an
  1412
  award of 80 times the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is set at £3.60—I do not say that it will be, but if it were to be that—that figure will be less than £300.
  It is slightly unfair and "over the top" to suggest that that is an unreasonable burden on an employer who, by this step, could effectively prevent an employee finding out—
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: That is the minimum. It could be much more.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Not for an individual employee. It would be 80 times the national minimum wage. If the national minimum wage goes up, which I am sure is the noble Baroness's point, it will rise by that amount. It ought to be understood what the scale of the penalty will be. It is likely to remain in the same area.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I do not suppose that he has been in business. His expertise is in the law, and I have great respect for his knowledge. But if you are running a tiny shop and you have difficulty meeting all the salaries on a Friday, this provision could make quite a big difference. All my very modest amendment attempts to do is allow some discretion.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have been in business; barristers also have to run their business. The noble Baroness may laugh, but barristers start out with no money, and they start out employing people. Barristers, like shopkeepers and everybody in small business, have the option of avoiding the penalty of £300-odd by complying with the reasonable provisions of the law.
  Having the award fixed, which is what the provision amounts to, would enable cases to be handled much more swiftly and effectively in a tribunal. There will be no need for the tribunal to spend time considering specific amounts. At the same time, employers are protected, because a tribunal must first have found the complaint of a worker to be well-founded.
  I believe the balance in this provision is right. It is a reasonable penalty and is the only means of enforcing the order. It is fixed, easy and simple. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am certainly considering the lateness of the hour. Perhaps I may point out that when we originally discussed all these matters we were told that we could have two days to debate them in Committee. I understand that the House is very busy. However, as the noble and learned Lord knows, on Thursday evening we did not begin debating the Bill until late. We certainly did not spend more than five hours on it. The position is the same today. This is our second day for debate, but in effect our second half-day. The Government have offered us another evening next Monday, about which we are delighted. I shall certainly withdraw this amendment, and, undoubtedly, during the course of the evening I shall not move all of the amendments. However, I think it right to say that we on these Benches do not agree with the national minimum

  1413
  wage. We believe in a national minimum income. I have spent many hours on these amendments because I want to do justice to your Lordships and make sure that I put my points forward. One thing I can tell the Committee with certainty is this. For the hours I have put in, no matter what we hear from the Low Pay Commission regarding the level of the national minimum wage, I am not earning the national minimum wage and I suspect that many of your Lordships will not be earning it either. We shall withdraw—
  Lord Carter: Would the noble Baroness speed up if we paid her the national minimum wage?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not know. I thank the noble Lord the Chief Whip for his kindly intervention. All I would say is that, on Thursday, I withdrew several amendments. There are one or two that I did not move then which I shall wish to bring back on Report. I am sure that the Chief Whip does not intend to give us days and days on Report. I shall withdraw the amendment but—
  Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, could the noble and learned Lord kindly answer my taxation questions?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry, in the cut and thrust of debate with the noble Baroness, I completely forgot the questions on tax and I apologise. I cannot give the noble Lord a definitive answer because neither those in the Box nor myself regard ourselves as expert tax advisers. We think that it could be set off against tax, but the noble Lord should not rely on that. It depends on the tax position of the employer, especially whether he is making profits in relation to the matter.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Powers of officers]:
  [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Non-compliance: worker entitled to additional remuneration]:
  [Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Power of officer to issue enforcement notice]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 90:
  Page 13, line 36, at end insert—
  ("( ) Any requirement under subsection (2) above shall be stayed pending the determination of any appeal pursuant to subsection (4) of this section.").
  The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 90 and speak also to Amendment No. 91. They are simple amendments which remedy two omissions that simple justice requires your Lordships' House, as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, to remedy.
  The amendment to Clause 19(2) provides for a stay of enforcement notice requiring payments of sums which the enforcement officer rules is due from an employer, pending any appeal by the employer. This follows normal precedent in case of civil debt, with the following distinction. If an employer is forced to pay a sum to an employee which is later ruled not to be due, then the normal facts of life make it difficult, if not impossible, to recover it from the employee, who may by then not be able to be found.
  The second amendment is to subsection (7). If the tribunal decides that the enforcement officer would have had no reason to serve an enforcement notice, instead of allowing the appeal it has to rescind the enforcement notice. But by then the employer may have incurred legal and accountancy costs and all kinds of other expenses. The normal rule is that costs should follow the event. If the enforcement officer is as radically wrong as is envisaged by Section 17(6)(a), then the employer should not be left out of pocket.
  The amendment gives the tribunal the widest possible discretion about the amount of compensation to be awarded, including, one assumes, taking into account the fact that the employer may have brought his problems on himself. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 90. Subsection (2) of Clause 19 as drafted says that an officer can serve an enforcement notice requiring the employer to pay sums due to the worker because of a past failure to pay the minimum wage. I think we all agree that this is an extremely important provision.
  Equally important, subsection (4) gives the employer the right to appeal against the notice within four weeks of receiving it. The amendment which we are debating would postpone an employer's duty to pay those arrears until the appeal had been heard. Thus, if the employer has been paying below the minimum wage, the worker might have to wait a further period of time before the enforcement officer could serve a penalty notice on the employer. This would plainly invite abuse from employers simply wishing to delay payment of the full amount.
  We have heard that the employer must be treated fairly. And of course the Government agree with that. We have also heard that the legislation is weighted to favour the worker—and we agree with that too. I make no apologies; it is quite right that it should be so. But we must not forget that it is the employer who has the duty to pay the minimum wage. He is responsible for ensuring that he is complying with this law, as with any other law.

  1415
  If an employer is confident that he will win his appeal, because he is sure that he has always paid the national minimum wage, he can choose to pay nothing pending the outcome of the appeal. If he accepts that he was underpaying, but thinks the calculation of arrears is wrong, he should pay what he believes is due pending the outcome of the appeal. In either case he risks being served with a penalty notice imposing a financial penalty for continued non-compliance with the enforcement notice. The only purpose of a penalty notice is to penalise employers who fail to comply with enforcement notices.
  However—and this is the crucial point—while it is true that such a notice can be served where the employer is appealing against the enforcement notice, in such circumstances it is not enforceable until that appeal is finally determined or withdrawn. The employer has the right, under Clause 20, to appeal against the penalty notice as well. And again, if he does so, the penalty notice is not enforceable until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn. Only if those appeals fail or are withdrawn, will the defaulting employer have to pay the financial penalty. Indeed, if he continues to underpay the national minimum wage he may face criminal prosecution.
  Members of the Committee will note that, in those circumstances, the related Amendment No. 91 would require the DTI in addition to compensate the employer. I will turn to that amendment next. The amendment would require the DTI to pay compensation to an employer in the event of the employer's appeal against an enforcement notice being upheld. The amount would be determined by the tribunal and would include, but would not be limited to, compensation in respect of any legal and accountancy costs incurred by the employer.
  We have heard it argued in defence of this amendment that there needs to be some symmetry of protection for employers and employees; we have been told that, just as the vulnerable worker is entitled to claim underpayments from an employer, so the vulnerable employer should be able to claim compensation if, on appeal, an officer was found to have wrongly served an enforcement notice. But the argument on the basis of "symmetry" is misleading. It is built on false premises, and therefore draws a false conclusion—for it implies that, like a pay dispute, this is a matter of bargaining between employer and worker. But of course this Bill is not concerned with negotiations and disputes, where both sides quite rightly expect equal treatment. The relationship we are constructing is, if you like, deliberately asymmetrical. The purpose of this Bill is to protect the worker from unscrupulous employers; not the other way around.
  The obligation is on the employer to pay at least the statutory minimum. He must be able to prove that he is paying it. The employer must obey the law or face the consequences, and the enforcement officer will, if he has reason to believe that the minimum wage has not been paid, serve a notice.
  We expect enforcement officers will carry out their duties diligently. We will take steps to ensure that they do. So we do not anticipate that there should be many
  1416
  successful appeals by employers. But, if the employer appeals against the enforcement notice, as he is entitled to do under Clause 19, and that appeal is completely successful, the enforcement notice will be rescinded. There is no need for any additional compensation payment to the employer.
  In most proceedings before a tribunal, costs are not awarded. However, were an enforcement officer to act unreasonably in conducting his defence of the enforcement notice in an appeal before a tribunal by an employer, the tribunal rules would already permit the tribunal to make an award of costs against him. To go further is unnecessary. Moreover the proposal begs an interesting question: what should be the consequences for an employer if he is unsuccessful in his appeal? Should he be penalised further? I would not argue so, but that is where the logic of this amendment would take us.
  I believe that the clause works best as it is currently drafted. It reflects the approach taken to all claims to employment tribunals; namely, that costs should not normally be awarded, again to keep the lawyers out. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 92:
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
  EMPLOYER'S FAILURE TO PAY CONTRACTED WAGES
  (" . The failure of an employer to pay any wages at all as required under a contract of employment or a contract for services shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as a failure to pay the national minimum wage and no enforcement procedures under sections 17 to 22 of this Act shall be undertaken in such cases.").
  The noble Baroness said: This proposed new clause seeks to remove an anomaly, or rather a potential cause of injustice, which seems to have been overlooked by the draftsman in framing the Bill. It is not a device to enable an employer to escape from paying the national minimum wage by the simple expedient of not paying any wages at all. He would soon get short shrift from his employees, who would justifiably march out at the end of the first pay day. Such a cumbersome dodge would be totally ineffective because the employer would also find himself in the district court in no time at all.
  No, this is to cover the situation where an employer becomes bankrupt or goes into liquidation or receivership and is unable to pay the wages due to staff who then become preferential creditors. It may take some time for them to receive their wages, even supposing that there are enough realisable assets to do so, especially bearing in mind that the Crown, in the guise of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, is even more preferential and may snatch all the

  1417
  available assets. It would be iniquitous if, having seized the funds available to pay the wages, the Crown were then to prosecute the employer for having failed to do SO.
  It is equally unfair if, following a bankruptcy, the employer's misfortunes were added to by a prosecution. It is true that there are bankruptcies and liquidations which have either a touch of fraud or of mismanagement about them. However, it is not, except in the most blatant of cases, a criminal offence to fail to pay one's debts. When that is the case, other creditors, apart from employees, will be involved. There are also severe penalties available, including imprisonment. In a normal case there is no criminal sanction because the employer has not paid his trade creditors.
  There is no need to make what I may describe as unfortunate employers liable to criminal sanctions because among those ordinary creditors are included employees who, regrettably, missed their last pay day. I am certain that the Government did not intend to create a specially privileged class of creditors where, unlike electricity companies or the local council, a failure to pay results in automatic prosecution. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 92, which on one view is rather breathtaking in its boldness, would have the effect that complete non-payment of wages would not count as failure to pay the minimum wage. Therefore, an employer who paid his workers nothing at all would not be vulnerable to a claim by an individual under Clauses 17 or 18, or to action by the enforcement officer under Clause 19, issuing an enforcement notice, Clause 20, on behalf of a worker, or Clause 21, issuing a penalty notice. Therefore, putting aside a case of bankruptcy or liquidation, the very unscrupulous employer could simply say to his employees, "Look, we are a bit short of money at the moment. Do you mind not being paid anything at all for the next few weeks?", in which case there would be no rights even under the National Minimum Wage Bill.
  This amendment appears to betray to some extent a misunderstanding of how the enforcement provisions of the Bill work. Clearly, the Government's intention is neither to leave a large loophole, so that employers can get away with paying literally nothing, nor to create duplication of claims. I can assure the Committee that the Bill avoids each of those undesirable outcomes.
  Failure to pay the minimum wage is treated as an unauthorised deduction of wages. Action to pursue such a claim may be made under Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Instead or in addition, a civil action may be brought for breach of contract. The Employment Rights Act 1996, in providing protection against unauthorised deductions of wages, also protects workers against complete non-payment of wages.
  The amendment is undesirable because it would prevent claims being enforced in the event of failure to pay wages at all. This is a matter of principle. If no wages are paid at all, a worker should be able to pursue a claim under the Employment Rights Act. Where wages are paid below the level of the minimum wage, the worker should again be able to pursue the claim
  1418
  as an unauthorised deduction of wages under the Employment Rights Act. In other words, a worker should be able to recover the minimum wage especially when he is paid nothing and for whatever reason. There should not be any exceptions to this principle and the enforcement rule should apply. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. I do not recall the number of the amendment that we dealt with on Thursday which touched on a very similar point. Undoubtedly the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will write to me on that amendment. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 23 [The right not to suffer detriment]:
  [Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 94:
  Page 17, line 2, after ("by") insert (", or by virtue of, any provision of").
  The noble Lord said: I suggest that we discuss Amendments Nos. 94, 95, 98, 126, 127 and 132 at the same time. The two government amendments, Nos. 94 and 95, are linked tidying-up amendments whose purpose is to ensure consistency and correctness of drafting.
  Each amendment affects Clause 23, which protects workers against detrimental action for asserting rights under the Bill. The effect of Amendment No. 94, which adds the formulation "by virtue of" in Clause 23(3)(a), is to ensure that the rights to which the protection of Clause 23 applies are rights conferred by other legislation which apply for minimum wage purposes by virtue of this Bill; for example, the legislation covering the agricultural wages regimes or regulations made under the Bill, as well as rights conferred directly by the Bill.
  This brings the drafting into line with the new Section 104A(3)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inserted by Clause 25(1) of the Bill; and the equivalent Northern Ireland provision inserted by Clause 26.
  I turn to Amendment No. 95, which is a drafting amendment in the light of Amendment No. 94. Clause 23(3)(b) currently specifies that the clause applies also to rights under Clause 12. This provision becomes unnecessary because Amendment No. 94 provides for coverage of rights conferred by regulations under the Bill, including regulations made under Clause 12. I hope the Committee will agree to support these minor technical amendments.
  Amendment No. 132 is a tidying-up amendment consequential on the deletion of subsection (5) in what is now Clause 25, which was done by government amendment at Report stage in another place. That subsection (5) would have modified the Employment Rights Act 1996.
  But the prospective modification became unnecessary as a result of Section 12 of the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act. Subsection 25(5) was

  1419
  therefore deleted by an earlier government amendment, but the corresponding deletion of the repeal entry in Schedule 3 was overlooked at the time. I apologise for that fact, but Amendment No. 132 puts it right. I hope that the Committee can agree to this minor technical correction.
  I turn to government Amendments Nos. 98, 126 and 127. These highly technical amendments reflect changes in the treatment of dismissal procedure agreements made by the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998, as they affect the protection of employees in Northern Ireland against unfair dismissal for asserting their rights under the Bill.
  Particularly in view of the complicated nature of the amendments, I have written to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite with an explanatory note. I hope that they have received it. I am happy to share this explanation with the Committee and to place it on the record.
  Amendment No. 98 provides a power, in a new subsection (6) in Clause 26, for the Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland) to make an order to repeal subsection (5), as well as the new subsection (6), of Clause 26.
  Clause 26 deals with protection of employees in Northern Ireland from unfair dismissal for asserting their rights under the Bill.
  Clause 26(5) inserts a new paragraph (2)(d) into Article 142 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (which provides for "statutory exclusions" in that the statutory right not to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to employees covered by a designated dismissal procedures agreement; but which also provides that the statutory right nevertheless applies in the case of dismissals specified in certain statutory provisions). The effect of Clause 26(5) is to ensure that the right of an employee in Northern Ireland not to be dismissed for enforcing a right under the Bill will be one of the rights that applies regardless of whether the employee is covered by a designated dismissal procedures agreement.
  Section 12 of the Employment Rights (dispute Resolution) Act 1998 provides that there will no longer be statutory exclusions (of unfair dismissal rights) in dismissal procedures agreements. Instead, this will be left to the agreement to determine. Therefore, there will be no need to specify (as, in effect, Clause 26(5) does) that national minimum wage rights are outside those exclusions. Clause 26(5) thus becomes redundant.
  The Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 applies to England, Wales and Scotland, with corresponding provision for Northern Ireland to be made by Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Once that Order in Council is passed, it will become necessary to repeal Clause 26(5).
  This amendment therefore provides a power, in a new subsection (6), for the Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland) to make an order to repeal subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 26. The equivalent deletion was made to what is now Clause 25,
  1420
  "Right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed: Great Britain", at Commons Report stage—in their Amendment No. 25 (Hansard of 9th March 1998; col. 229).
  Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 are consequential drafting changes arising from Amendment No. 98. They amend Clause 51(8) dealing with regulation and order-making powers for Northern Ireland.
  I appreciate that these are complicated technical matters but I hope that this explanation, which will, of course, appear in Hansard, which itself is useful from the point of view of interpretation, has clarified the position and the need for these amendments which I ask the Committee to accept. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 95:
  Page 17, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("and").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed: Great Britain]:
  [Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed: Northern Ireland]:
  [Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 98:
  Page 20, line 30, at end insert—
  ("(6) The Department of Economic Development may by order repeal subsection (5) above and this subsection.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Tribunal hearings etc by chairman alone]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 20, line 37, at end insert (", unless either party requests that the tribunal be composed of three persons").
  The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 99 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 100 to 102. These are identical amendments to paragraphs in Clauses 27(1) and (2). Clause 27(1) relates to the constitution of an employment tribunal for certain purposes of this Bill under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, and Clause 27(2) relates to employment tribunals in Northern Ireland.
  The Bill provides for the tribunal for those purposes to consist of a chairman sitting alone. Each of the four amendments provides for either party to be able to request that the tribunal should consist of three persons. Clause 27 deals with complaints against an employer for failing to allow access to records under Clause 11 and appeals against enforcement and penalty notices under Clauses 19 and 22. The Government may claim that they are following the precedent set by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 for cases where the input of lay members was considered less

  1421
  essential because the pressure of work and the volume of cases resulted in inordinate delays and the available number of tribunal members had to be spread more thinly.
  The very success and popularity of the tribunal system created a problem that had to be solved in what I believe was a very unsatisfactory way. However, I agree that it was the only practical solution. It may well be that with experience of the operation of the new Act it will be found that extra tribunal members have to be appointed and trained because of the volume of work that it generates. We shall have to wait and see.
  In the Notes on Clauses it is stated that cases dealt with under the sit-alone provision usually turn on legal issues rather than disputes about the facts. We disagree with the Government on whether cases arising under Clauses 11, 19 and 22 are more likely to involve legal issues than factual ones. We believe that they are more likely to be factual than legal, or at least to have a greater factual than legal element. Did the employer fail to produce some or all of the records that he was required to? Did he fail to give the employee some or all of his right to inspect? Did he refuse access to such person as the worker may think fit? Did he fail to comply with an enforcement notice? Has the time for an appeal against it expired?
  I agree that in appeals under Clause 22 the permitted grounds are much more legal than factual. Nevertheless, they contain a substantial factual element as well. The important point is not whether we or the Government are right but the perception of the parties. An employer may well feel aggrieved by being bombarded with threatening notices that he believes are unjustified, or he may be threatened with drastic penalties when he believes in all good faith, and reasonably, that he has complied with them. Similarly, an employee may feel aggrieved that he has not received his full entitlement and that his employer has used all kinds of obstructive tactics against him. In either case one party or the other will want his day in court. Where the issue is one of fact he will want the satisfaction of having been heard by a form of jury.
  One cannot rely on a single chairman exercising a discretion as to whether to enlarge the tribunal. Human nature being what it is, most chairmen with the qualifications that they need simply to be appointed to the post will feel themselves perfectly capable of handling cases on their own. Pressures on chairmen to clear their list will discourage them from adjourning to call in lay assessors cases that have started and have already taken time to reach the top of the list.
  Courts, whether they be the mighty High Court of Justice or simple employment tribunals, exist for the benefit of litigants, not for the convenience of the judiciary—even less for the financial problems of the Treasury which has to pay judges. It is not for the Government to decide how judicial matters in these cases should be handled. If a litigant believes that his case deserves a full tribunal and makes a claim for one early enough in the proceedings then justice demands that he should have one and not be left with a grievance that he has not had a fair hearing.
  It is perhaps relevant to note that under Section 4(3)(e) of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 parties who face a three-person tribunal can opt for a chairman sitting alone. In those cases, the parties in effect are given a choice. There is absolutely no reason why parties in cases under this Bill should not have a similar right; or why they should suffer a lesser right.
  These simple amendments serve only to improve the working of the Act. They do not detract from the principles of the Bill. I urge the Government to accept them.
  Lord Haskel: I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. However, the parties to a dispute already have the right to ask for three persons to hear the case, but it is the chairman who decides. The Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act deals with this matter in some detail. It was a Private Member's Bill introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. He made it clear that the Government are committed to the tripartite nature of the tribunal system. Despite the noble Baroness's comments, perhaps I may take this opportunity to repeat that commitment. The two lay members can and do make a valuable contribution through their experience of employee relations in the workplace. This is much appreciated and in my opinion underpins the value of industrial tribunals.
  The kind of cases where such workplace experience is particularly valuable are those involving, for example, unfair dismissal or victimisation. Other clauses in the Bill protect workers against such victimisation for asserting their rights under the Bill. Complaints to tribunals on such grounds must be heard by a tribunal of three. There is no discretion for the chairman to sit alone in these cases. This rightly reflects the existing practice in relation to matters of this sort, where the two lay members can bring their own experience to bear.
  However, as the noble Baroness said, there is a different level of cases where, in my view, the role of the lay members is less relevant. These are typically technical cases and cases which hinge upon a point of law. The chairmen of those tribunals are always legally trained. There are three types of cases which Clause 27 adds to the "sit-alone" tribunals. The first such case relates to a complaint by a worker that his employer has failed to produce relevant records to enable the worker to check, for example, that he has received at least the rate of the minimum wage. It seems to me that this question is essentially a straightforward matter of fact. Either the employer has produced the records in question; or he has not. It seems unlikely that there would be dispute on that score.
  The second such case relates to an appeal by an employer against the imposition of an enforcement notice by an enforcement officer. To succeed in such an appeal, the employer needs to show that the officer had no reason to serve the enforcement notice—for example, because the worker in question was self-employed; that there had not been any underpayment of the minimum wage; or that the specified underpayment was incorrect.

  1423
  The question here is essentially, in my view, a matter of technical legal judgment. The decision which the tribunal will be called to make will rest on whether those criteria are met in the case in question.
  The third type of case which Clause 27 adds to the "sit-alone" list is an appeal by an employer against the imposition of a penalty notice for failure to comply with an enforcement notice. The grounds for successful appeal in this case are similar to those for appeal against an enforcement notice—and in my view turn essentially on technical, legal issues.
  In theory, the amendments which the noble Baroness has tabled would not prevent these three types of cases from being heard by the chairman sitting alone. This is because the effect of the amendments would be to make it compulsory to convene a tribunal of three, if either of the parties requests it. The consequence would therefore be to remove the chairman's discretion to decide whether to convene a tribunal of three. There is flexibility in the system which Clause 27 establishes, and in the whole system of "sit-alone" provisions which Clause 27 supplements. In every case where the chairman is required to sit alone, he retains discretion to decide to convene a tribunal of three. We feel that it is satisfactory to leave that to the discretion of the chairman. The existing legislation—the Industrial Tribunals Act, Section 5(4)(c)—makes clear that the chairman must have regard to any views of the parties before exercising his discretion to convene a tribunal of three—but the decision remains the chairman's. These amendments would remove the chairman's discretion. We have absolutely every confidence in the expertise of the chairmen of these tribunals.
  In practice, the amendment would probably compel the three members of the tribunal to sit in nearly every case of the type covered. That is not necessary or desirable. That is the purpose of providing the chairman with the discretion which these amendments seek to take away. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I do not agree with him but, due to the lateness of the hour, I will most certainly withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.]
  10.15 p.m.
  On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Although I gave notice that we were going to oppose Clause 27 standing part of the Bill, due to the lateness of the hour I shall not
  1424
  speak to that Motion this evening. However, I would not like the Minister to infer that I am happy with the clause. I most definitely am not.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness is not happy with the Bill.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister is absolutely right. I am not at all happy with the Bill. I am doing my best to improve it, not only for the benefit of employers but for employees and employment generally.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Reversal of burden of proof]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 103:
  Page 21, line 6, leave out ("qualifies or, as the case may be, qualified") and insert ("does not qualify or did not qualify").
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 103 to 105. When I spoke on Clause 10 I referred to a major constitutional issue. Another such issue arises from this clause which the marginal note unashamedly describes as the reversal of the burden of proof. In other words, in civil proceedings the plaintiff is not required to prove his case: not to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, not even just to the civil standard of the reasonable balance of probability. All the complainant has to do is to make an allegation, however fanciful, however far-fetched, misconceived or even malicious. The employer has to prove his innocence.
  It is worth noting that nothing in Clause 28 refers to the words "reasonable belief" or "in good faith". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has taken issue with me on several occasions over those words but on this particular occasion they do not appear.
  No more, innocent until proved guilty. What is the reason for the reversal of the judicial tradition that we are proud to have given to the rest of the world? Interestingly enough, the DTI gave the game away in an outburst of candour in its notes to the Bill. It said:
  "It should ensure that those remunerated at a rate below the national minimum wage can more easily succeed in claims to recover any underpayment".
  In other words, away with the concept of equality for all before the law. No level playing field. Perhaps it is more than symbolical that the scales on the figure of Justice outside the doors of this Chamber have not been replaced despite having been removed years ago. One of our attendants told me they were stolen.
  What is the explanation for this totally unjustified and biased departure from the normal standards that we expect in our courts? It is because old Labour still lurks behind certain ministerial desks in the DTI, harbouring caricatures of an employer being a cigar-smoking plutocrat with his foot firmly planted on the neck of a grovelling Bob Cratchit. I readily and immediately acquit the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, of that characterisation. If I am wrong I am sure that the Minister will tell me that his experience as a solicitor, a Member of Parliament and a Minister in a former

  1425
  administration as well as in the present one, and as a distinguished public servant in Brussels, means that he undoubtedly knows the realities of the business world.
  Neither do I include the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, in my stricture about lack of perception of the nature of the present relationship of employers/employees, even though he is apparently not participating in our deliberations about minimum wages. As a distinguished industrialist, he, too, undoubtedly is well aware of the balance that exists between both sides of the negotiating table. Nor do I include any of the Ministers sitting opposite me on the Front Bench.
  If your Lordships think that I am exaggerating the attitude of unreformed old Labour to employers, let me quote what the Minister of State at the DTI told the Committee in the other place. He stated:
  "For far too long, low paid workers, who have little or no representation, had found it impossible to do anything about their employment status or to gain access to basic minimum rights in the labour market".
  Later in the same debate, he went on to say:
  "I am putting the case not only for the Government but for millions of workers who, over the years, have not had the opportunity to make their voices heard".
  Millions of workers? Surely, that is a slight exaggeration.
  First, the type of employer who is most likely to become embroiled in disputes over the minimum wage is not some giant corporation or even the Government's bêtes noires, a well known fast food retailer or various so-called security firms providing the services of glorified nightwatchmen in some kind of uniform. No, it would be the owner of the village store; the high street mini-market struggling against discounted petrol and other what they call "loss leaders" but what is probably predatory pricing.
  What does the small businessman have ranged against him under this present Bill? Under Clause 14, the employer can call on the assistance of a state funded enforcement officer. He has the power to require the production of records, furnished in the presence of the officer's own witness, including the complainant, with an explanation of the records and other information. And most sinister of all, this officer has the power to enter an employer's premises without a warrant. I beg the indulgence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for repeating what I said earlier, because I still believe it.
  If that is not enough, this enforcement officer has the power not only to require the production of records at such time and place as the officer chooses, but also to summon the employer into his presence to be further interrogated. It should be noted that the Bill does not give the employer the right to be supported by his own adviser.
  Furthermore, there are the powers of the employee under Clause 10 to require the production of records under a home-made search warrant, euphemistically called a production notice, and for the employee to be entitled to be accompanied by such other person as the employee may think fit; perhaps a solicitor or someone
  1426
  from the local citizen's advice bureau or, I was even going to add, someone from Rent-a-Thug with a degree in GBH!
  In Committee in the other place, the Minister, in a flood of eloquence which says something for his stamina at 2.30 in morning, posed a series of rhetorical questions. He asked:
  "Where does the information come from? Who maintains the records? Who has information about remuneration and emoluments? Who maintains records about National Insurance and PAYE? Who maintains records about employees?".
  In answering himself, he said, "The employer does". Maybe so, but, as I have pointed out, the employee, together with his ally the enforcement officer, has draconian powers to secure access to those records. That is apart from the fact that the information should be in the possession of the employee without all these searches and interrogations and the need for the employee and the enforcement officer to be accompanied by a minder. The basic information which surely every employee will know is how much he is being paid and how many hours he has worked.
  Perhaps it is relevant to ask the Minister who the officers will be. Clause 13 gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint them and to second them from other government departments. Will they be trained accountants? Will they be tax inspectors made redundant as a result of all this self-assessment? The point is that they will be paid for at the public's expense. We have not been told how much it will cost, or perhaps we have and I have just missed it in all the reading that I have done. Their function will be to support the employee to construct a case against the employer unless the employer can convince them that there is no case to answer. In other words, their function is to presume that the employer is guilty unless he can positively prove the contrary.
  Let us look at a possible scenario for the sake of argument. Let us assume that the minimum wage is fixed at the entirely improbable figure of £1.20 per hour. I did not wish to suggest a figure which would give an idea to the Low Pay Commission as to what is should be. Let us suppose that the employer pays £1.50 per hour but the employee, who is paid in cash, as is sometimes customary in this country, alleges that he has received £1.05 per hour and that the employer's PAYE records are fictitious because the employer has pocketed the difference. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how the employer is to discharge the onus of proof. Is it suggested that in future, every small employer, in addition to all the records he already has to keep—tax, PAYE, National Insurance, VAT, self-assessment, and records under the Companies Act—must also demand a receipt every pay day?
  One of the ills which the Government are undoubtedly trying to remedy is that of contrived arrangements which, by some device or other, turn someone who is clearly an employee into a so-called self-employed individual. That can certainly operate to his detriment as regards legal rights, employment protection rights, health and safety and so on. On this side of the Committee, we entirely support anything

  1427
  which will remove such abuses. But that does not require the sledgehammer which the Government are now proposing.
  The Inland Revenue has a simple test to decide whether or not someone is bona fide self-employed. All the enforcement officer needs to do is to obtain evidence from the person's records at the tax office. The Government's excuse for that reversal of a fundamental constitutional concept and right is that the employer is in a dominant position vis-à-vis the employee. But as I have shown, it is the opposite in this case. With all the power of the state and its enforcement officers, the employee is in the dominant position as regards procuring evidence and information.
  My honourable friend, the Member for Ashford, said at the opening of the Committee debate on this clause in the other place that he had thought originally that the Government's reasons for reversing the burden of proof were obscure, but having read the DTI notes, he knew that they were daft. We are not allowed in this Chamber to indulge in such flamboyant language. However, I should like to think that I have discharged the onus of proof in demonstrating that the clause is both unnecessary and unreasonable. I hope that the Committee will support the long-established rule of law by accepting the amendments which restore the burden of proof to where it belongs; that is on the complainant. I beg to move.
  Lord Newby: The noble Baroness referred very elegantly to the judicial tradition which she used in support of her argument. It is fair to say that the Industrial Relations Act 1971—the first time that the employee had a cause of action against an employer for unfair dismissal—provided that the burden of proof rests with the employer, not with the employee, to show that the reason for the dismissal was fair.
  In that case there was a much more draconian range of powers than appears in this Bill. It seems to me that the Bill is merely continuing the tradition established by the Conservative Government in 1971. They saw, rightly, that in the kind of dispute that we are talking about, unless the burden of proof were reversed, there simply would not be a level playing field and the balance of forces would be cast unfairly against the employee.
  It seems to me that exactly the same applies here. I too am an employer. I keep records of what I pay the people who work for me. By and large, I do not pay them in cash. If I were to do so, I suspect that I should require from them a receipt to show how much cash I had given them. Even if I were handing over cash as opposed to paying by cheque or direct debit, the thought that I would somehow do that without any records or in a way that would leave me open to dispute is ludicrous. I cannot believe that as a matter of general principle and practice that employers are doing that.
  I apologise for detaining the Committee on this matter but I have not spoken before this evening. I feel very strongly that this is an issue where a principle has been established in an Act introduced by the administration
  1428
  of the noble Baroness's party. Therefore, it is appropriate for the tradition which that Act established to be continued in this legislation.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Despite the enthusiasm with which the noble Baroness produced her extremely eloquent and effective speech, if one thought a little about why it was that the burden of proof had been reversed one would realise that there were quite good reasons behind it. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the Industrial Relations Act 1971 which was introduced by a Conservative Government. It placed the burden upon the employer to establish that a dismissal was fair. The reason it placed that burden on the employer was plainly that it would be the employer who would have the detail relating to that person's employment and the circumstances in which he was dismissed.
  The approach taken by the 1971 Act is one used repeatedly in civil law. The latter has always been able to construct arrangements whereby, in circumstances where the answer to a particular problem is more likely to be in the hands of one party than another, it will place the burden of proof on that other person rather than the plaintiff. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the burden of proof in criminal cases should not be confused with that in civil cases.
  What does this legislation do about the reversal of the burden of proof? First, it places the burden on the employer to establish whether an individual qualifies for the national minimum wage; and, secondly, it places the burden of proof on the employer to establish that the employee has been paid the national minimum wage. That is whether the claim is brought for an unauthorised deduction before an employment tribunal or whether the claim has been brought to enforce a contract claim where it is said that the worker is not paid the minimum wage. With great respect to the noble Baroness, that would seem to be quite sensible.
  As far as concerns people who might be making claims for the national minimum wage, very many of them will be in a moderately vulnerable position. Many of them may be isolated from other workers; for example, they may be out-workers or home workers, completely without assistance, and indeed sometimes not very well able to express themselves in English. As a matter of principle, what is wrong with them being allowed to go to an industrial tribunal and say, "I don't believe that I have been paid the minimum wage; I appear to be getting a very small amount of money"? If the noble Baroness had her way, the employer would simply say: "Prove that you are an employee first of all, and prove what you have been paid". The employee would then say, "I can't remember the terms upon which I was actually employed and I can't tell you what I have been paid over the years because I'm paid on a piece rate".
  Surely in such a case the sensible course is that the employer comes before the tribunal and provides the material showing the basis of employment or the relationship between the worker and the employer,

  1429
  together with the figures as to what that person has been paid. A balance must be struck somewhere. The burden has to be placed on one or the other. Which is the more sensible place to put the burden? Is it on the employee in trying to enforce the national minimum wage or is it on the employer? The obvious answer seems to me to be on the employer. If he has a complete answer to the case, he will be able to say, for example, "This person is not an employee", or "I paid the national minimum wage". He will be able to do so much more easily than would be the case with the employee.
  I find the suggestion of the noble Baroness—namely, that this is some sort of constitutional affront—impractical, misguided and alarmist. I suggest that she should think again about the basis of the amendments that she has tabled. She should consider, as a matter of practicality, where the balance should properly lie. In my respectful submission it is clear that the reversal of the burden of proof in relation to these two matters is sensible and practical. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Despite the beguiling way in which the Minister responded to that point, he did not respond to the following point. Nowhere does Clause 28 state—I searched hard—that the employee either has reasonable grounds or is acting in good faith. We have often used those terms during the course of this Bill. The Minister appears to be saying it is quite obvious that the burden of proof should be on the employer. I believe it is much more obvious that the employee should at least have reasonable suspicion to believe he has not been paid the minimum wage. After all, he will be given his money with a pay slip. However, due to the lateness of the hour, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I give the Minister notice that I shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: For the same reason as I have just mentioned I shall not oppose the Question that Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill at this time of night.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Offences]:
  Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 106:
  Page 22, line 18, leave out ("delays or").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 106 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. I wish to follow the line of my noble friend. As drawn, this part of the Bill worries me greatly. The Bill will give to what is described as an "officer"—and an officer is probably an official appointed by the Secretary of State, or seconded from a local authority—powers to demand information and compliance with his orders. In reality, Clause 31 as drawn deprives the
  1430
  employer of the elementary rights enjoyed under our law in respect of other matters—criminal matters. We should remember that the remedies given to an aggrieved employee are essentially to secure a civil right to recover a civil debt; a debt incurred as a result of a right to a statutory rate of pay. But this part of the Bill provides for criminal sanctions and criminal penalties not available to the ordinary civil courts except after a court order and after proceedings for contempt of court.
  The Bill creates a new criminal offence of "contempt of officer"; an offence which deprives the employer of defences that are available to the most violent criminal prisoner. Clause 31(5)(a ) makes it an offence to delay or obstruct an officer. We do not object to the word "obstruct". We have tabled Amendment No. 106 because we object strongly to the word "delays". "Delays" is not defined. What happens if an officer demands information or whatever and the employer says, "You will have to make an appointment or wait while I consult my solicitor"? Is that a delay? If so, that is to be an offence. Our Amendment No. 107 seeks to require the officer to exercise his powers reasonably. The word "reasonable" keeps appearing throughout the Bill. We have already had a number of debates on the word "reasonable". The Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go over that ground again.
  However, I remind the Committee that as regards the criminal offence of obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty, the police officer must prove not only that he was exercising a legal duty, but that he was doing so reasonably. A police officer cannot complain if, contrary to any requirement of his, a suspect insists on exercising a legal right of his own.
  Finally, Amendment No. 108 seeks to insert the word "wilfully" to qualify "neglect". Again, the Government are seeking to create an absolute criminal offence with no defence. "Neglect", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "to fail to do". An employer may neglect—that is fail—to answer questions, furnish information or produce any documents simply because he has forgotten or does not know the answer or because he does not have the documents. This iniquitous provision even deprives an employer of the right to silence that is still among our constitutional safeguards in criminal cases, notwithstanding recent changes in the law.
  What the provisions in this section that we wish to modify seek to do is to create powers that are not available to the police and to subject a person guilty of the offence of being an employer to penalties, sanctions and procedures not available to the police when investigating a suspected serial killer. It is constitutionally essential that your Lordships introduce a sense of rational perspective and proportionality into this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree that these provisions in the Bill should be balanced. We think that they are and are at the right level to achieve enforcement.
  Let me deal with Amendment No. 106 first: to take out the word "delays" in relation to Clause 31(5)(a). We are not talking here about an employer's inability to pay,

  1431
  which will be covered by a different part of the clause. The fact is that an employer will be obliged to pay at least a minimum wage, and refusal or wilful neglect to do so will be an offence under subsection (1) of Clause 31. Rather, the provisions which are the subject of this amendment are designed for where an enforcement officer asks an employer for something to ensure compliance with the Act.
  The focus of the provision is on the word "intentionally". We are not suggesting that an employer who accidentally happens to be out, for example, when the enforcement officer calls should be guilty of an offence; but employers who systematically or deliberately seek to frustrate the enforcement officer in pursuing his duties should not be allowed to get away with it. I do not think that the noble Baroness who so eloquently moved this amendment would disagree with that proposition.
  That is the purpose of this provision and that is why we think that the amendment would be inappropriate. It would have the effect of removing one complete section of protection against the employer who seeks systematically and deliberately to obstruct the enforcement of the Act.—
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Surely delay is obstruction.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If the noble Baroness is right, what is the objection to having the word "delay" in? There would certainly be scope, I am afraid, for lawyers to regard "obstruction" as being something different from "delay", and if the person deliberately delays the officer from enforcing, there should surely be some sanction. At the moment I cannot really see the argument for not including it.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I am concerned about,
  "intentionally … obstructs an officer acting".
  If somebody was delaying something for six or eight weeks, that would be covered. There could be another form of obstruction by making sure they were not allowed into the premises—that is, physically allowed in. I just feel it is tautological.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I entirely respect the noble Baroness's intervention but, with great respect, I do not feel that she is right because obstruction is one thing and delay is another. I shall certainly think about the drafting aspect, but I do not believe, if the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is right, that there is a point of principle between us. Indeed we are all singing from the same hymn sheet in relation to this.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I was trying to be helpful.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I regard it as a most helpful intervention. I am sorry to have looked a gift horse so horribly in the mouth, but I do not think we are in considerable disagreement in relation to it.
  1432
  The noble Baroness moved her amendment on a slightly different basis. She had understandably been affected by the rhetoric of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and saw constitutional outrages all over the shop. I do not think that is the right approach.
  I now turn to Amendment No. 107. Again, it is intended to deal with enforcement officer offences, if I may so call them. Amendment No. 107 would require enforcement officers to exercise their powers in a reasonable way. The Opposition have sought to introduce the "reasonable" test at a number of points at different times during the Bill's consideration. As with the other attempts, we believe that this one, too, is inappropriate and should be resisted.
  Our basic premise is that we would expect enforcement officers to act reasonably within the framework of the powers conferred upon them. That must be the basis of all enforcement. If, however, an officer fails to act in a proper manner, it is likely that he will be acting outside the terms of his power in Clause 14. I fear that a specific "reasonable" test would add nothing. It would add a further explicit hurdle, no doubt of great interest to the legal fraternity, which could make it more difficult for an enforcement officer to act speedily. At worst, it might only be of benefit to non-compliant employers trying to find ways to avoid their obligations.
  I hope in the light of the assurance that I have given regarding Clause 114, the noble Baroness will feel reassured in relation to the absence of the word "reasonable" on that occasion.
  The last amendment in this group is Amendment No. 108. On the face of it, that would appear to have some merit. The current drafting of the Bill would make it an offence to refuse or neglect,
  "to answer any question, furnish any information or produce any document when required to do so",
  by an enforcement officer. The amendment would apply the higher standard of "wilful" neglect in a failure to comply with such requests.
  I say that the amendment would at first sight appear to have some merit, because it would apparently mirror the offence of a refusal or wilful neglect to pay at least the minimum wage. However, such a comparison would be ill-founded. The reason is that we are dealing with two very different circumstances.
  Throughout the Bill we have wanted to create a fair balance between the rights of employers and workers. In particular, we have set the high standard of wilful neglect for the criminal offence of failing to pay at least a minimum wage. That is because we would not want to see employers being punished through accidental failure. We recognise that in this connection accidents may happen. We recognise in particular the reality that in relation to the sometimes complicated matters of determining pay and pay reference periods, there is a possibility that accidental errors will be made, particularly during the running-in period of the minimum wage.
  However, the circumstances envisaged by this provision are quite different. It seems to me that there can be little, if any, room for misunderstanding or

  1433
  accidental error where an enforcement officer has asked an employer a question or had requested him to do something, such as produce records, and the employer has not answered the question or has not produced the records. I therefore believe that wilful neglect in this context would be an unreasonably high standard to prove. On a practical level, I understand that it might be extremely difficult to prove a wilful neglect to provide information.
  Clearly, we do not want to penalise accidental failure or oversight. But it is important to catch the non-accidental or "accidental on purpose" cases. If this amendment is pressed, I therefore advise the Committee to reject it. In those circumstances, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will not feel bound to press her amendment or move Amendment No. 108.
  Lord Burnham: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is it not the fact that the inclusion of the word "wilful" in Amendment No. 108 entirely justifies the arguments made by my noble friends with regard to Amendments Nos. 106 and 107? We are talking about somebody who deliberately fails to observe the conditions laid down in the Bill. By the use of the word "wilful" the noble and learned Lord might consider accepting all three of these amendments, bearing in mind that they are a trio and are totally interrelated.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have dealt with each amendment individually. So far as the word "wilful" is concerned in Amendment No. 108, the Government's view is rightly that if a person refuses or neglects to answer any question, it is hard to see that that will not be wilful. In relation, for example, to refusing to answer a question, the concept of "wilful" is very difficult to apply. That is not the case in relation to not paying a wage. There, it could be believed, bona fide, that the right wage was X, but they have got it wrong. There, it would be right to make it a criminal offence only where a person wilfully neglects to pay the minimum wage; that is, that a person knows that he should be paying X, but pays Y. We think that the payment situation is different from such a thing as refusing to answer a question. That is why there is a difference and why we think not inserting the word "wilfully" is appropriate.
  Baroness Seccombe: I reject the words that I was infected by my noble friend. I was convinced by her excellent arguments. It is always a pleasure to listen to the warm and reasonable words of the Minister, but I need to read them in detail. Therefore, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 106.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
  [Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Proceedings for offences]:
  [Amendments Nos. 109 to 111 not moved.]
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Agency workers who are not otherwise "workers"]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 112:
  Page 24, line 9, leave out from ("principal") to ("and") in line 12.
  The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 112 and speak to Amendment No. 113. These amendments leave out paragraphs in Clause 34 which would have the effect of making an employer who engages an agency to perform functions for his business responsible for the payment of the national minimum wage to those agency workers. This is not only iniquitous but it turns the whole law of agency on its head. An employer might engage a firm of industrial cleaners to clean his premises for him. He might engage a firm of caterers to operate his works canteen. He might engage a specialist firm to operate a particular piece of equipment, for example, one of those tower cranes that we see on building sites. He may use temporary staff from one of the secretarial or employment agencies such as Manpower.
  The employer, the principal if you will, is definitely not the employer of the agency worker. It is the agency who is the employer. There might be cases in the law of tort where the principal could be held liable for the wrongful acts of the agency worker, but that is not because he is the employer but because he is directing his work and actions.
  The principal has no part in the contract between the agency worker and the employer. The principal does not pay him his wages, indeed, often he will not know what they are because the agency will not want the principal to know what its profit margin is. The principal is not responsible for deducting the employee's PAYE or national insurance or for holiday or sick pay. If there is a breach of health and safety regulations, it will be the agency, as his employer, who will be responsible for any damages or criminal penalties, although the principal might in some circumstances be jointly liable. For all those reasons it is wrong to involve the principal in the financial and contractual arrangements between the agency worker and his real employer.
  The Notes to Clauses suggests that the reason for the provision is that,
  "It may not be apparent whether the agency worker is working for the agent or the third party".
  That is nonsense. The employer is the person with whom the contract of employment is made and from whom the worker should have received his statutory written memorandum of employment terms, actually called his contract of employment. The employer is the one who actually pays the worker's wages and deals with PAYE. This may not be the person who physically hands over the weekly pay packet because it is conceivable that the agency may well ask the principal to do that for it. The simple act of handing over a pay packet on behalf of the agency, as the agent of the agent, in fact, cannot make the principal the employer. If the provision of Clause 34(2)(b) really means what it says, then I fear that some agency workers may not get their

  1435
  pay packets early on a Friday while the employer, possibly in an armoured car, makes the rounds of the various sites.
  But there cannot be the slightest doubt in the worker's mind who his actual employer is, especially if he is also wearing some kind of uniform. What if the agency worker performs duties for several principals during the week or during the day—quite a common situation, especially in the industrial cleaning business? What if he does not even perform the duties for the principal on the principal's premises—in a letter shot, mailing or dispatching the principal's goods, for example?
  A simple look by the employee at his PAYE records and pay slips will soon clear up any doubt in his or her mind as to who is his employer. There is no justification for involving the principal who has genuinely contracted out some activity in the pay and conditions of the agency's actual employees. There is no justification for treating genuine agency arrangements, which have long been a regular, entirely proper and indeed sometimes entirely necessary commercial arrangement, as though they were some sort of evasion device.
  Agency contracts were in use long before this Bill was ever dreamed up. Whatever problems the clause seeks to resolve with regard to defining self-employed persons, disturbing normal agency arrangements will not resolve them. Nobody but nobody should be made responsible for the performance of the legal obligation of someone else under this Bill by this shotgun approach. The solution is to remove the paragraph, for which these amendments call. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I support this amendment, and do so from practical experience. I must declare an interest in that I am a principal, and have been for the past eight-and-a-half years, in an agency employing nurses. In relation to the nurses I employ, I hand out the money at the end of every week and they have no idea of the amount of commission that I pay to the agencies—I have had several over this period. That amount ranges from 20 per cent. to 42 per cent., depending on the agency and the efficiency thereof.
  When I read through the Bill I was pretty horrified at the idea that I could be responsible and could be regarded as such because I am the principal. We must think long and hard about this. It is not only the crane drivers who are involved; there are thousands of people in the same situation as myself, particularly in homecare for disabled people. It will cause a lot of angst and a lot of anxiety when people realise what is happening through the Bill.
  Viscount Thurso: This clause gives me cause for concern if what the noble Baroness says is correct. Perhaps I may therefore put a question to the Minister.
  Suppose I employ, say, the Busy-Bee cleaning agency to come in to clean my office and I have a specific contract with the proprietor of the Busy-Bee
  1436
  for my office to be cleaned. He then supplies various workers who come to do that job and in those circumstances I do not pay them or give them any money but have a contractual arrangement with the company and pay that company. Under this clause am I in any way liable for being responsible for the minimum wage?
  Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, there is a misunderstanding of the position affecting this clause. It is because the agency sector is highly complicated that we decided that Clause 34 should represent a belt-and-braces approach, ensuring that where there is an uncertain position relating to the contractual status of agency workers—because it is not clear whether there is a worker's contract with either the agency or the principal—such workers will, nevertheless, be covered by the Bill as though such a contract exists. That is the purpose of Clause 34.
  Clearly, the likelihood is that the majority of agency workers will be covered automatically by the Bill, regardless of Clause 34. They will have the status of a worker by virtue of the contractual arrangement with the agency or with the agency's client, whom the Bill identifies as the principal. The vast majority of agency workers are likely to have a contract of that kind. Clause 34 is designed to cover those uncertain or grey areas; it is a fall-back position.
  Sometimes the existence of a contract is undoubtedly questionable. Where a contract does exist, it may not always be apparent with whom the contract has been entered into and the employment status of the agency worker may itself be unclear. I hope that there will be very few cases where agencies seek to find ways around their responsibilities under employment law, but it is possible. It is for that reason that Clause 34 exists.
  I turn immediately to the specific amendment, Amendment No. 112. I do not have very much to add to what I have already said. The effect of the amendment would be to make Clause 34 unworkable. I cannot think that that is the noble Baroness's objective. The effect would be to exclude precisely those individuals whom the clause is designed to bring into the Bill in the first place; that is to say, it would exclude agency workers who fall into grey areas where it is unclear whether or not they have a worker's contract with the agent or with the principal. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 112 as it would negate the whole purpose that I have been alluding to.
  Amendment No. 113 is an interesting amendment but it is wholly inconsistent with Amendment No. 112. It relates to Clause 34(2), which, in the absence of a worker's contract, defines the person with whom the agency worker is to be regarded as having such a contract. Clause 34(2)(a) provides that the contract is regarded as being with either the agent or the principal, depending on which of them is responsible for paying the agency worker. Clause 34(2)(b) provides that where neither the agent nor the principal is responsible for payment, the contract is to be regarded as being with whichever of them actually

  1437
  pays the agency worker. The effect of Amendment No. 113 would be that the agency worker would be regarded as having a worker's contract in all cases with the agency—in the absence of such a contract or, in case of doubt, as the person with whom it was held.
  I give the noble Baroness this—the amendment does have the advantage of simplicity. However, the difficulty is that it would also mean that even where it is understood by all concerned—the agency, the principal and the worker—that the principal will pay the worker, it will be the agency that will be legally responsible for paying the worker the national minimum wage. I am not sure that the noble Baroness would wish to suggest that that is a satisfactory or desirable outcome. It is a highly difficult and technical matter and it is important because there is a growing tendency for some organisations to use agency workers to provide flexibility. Although the use of agency workers provides significant advantages for the client company, the uncertainty of the employment status of the worker can at times lead to a lack of legal protection for the worker.
  As far as concerns Clause 34, it is of value to bear in mind that the standard agency worker arrangements will not be affected either by the clause as it stands or by the clause as it would be amended by Amendment No. 113 because those agency workers will in any event be workers under the general definition in Clause 54 and it will be clear from the contract who is responsible for paying the minimum wage.
  I do not deny that there is some merit in the argument adduced by the noble Baroness. As I said before, it has the virtue of simplicity and it would make it easier for agency workers to identify the person from whom to claim; namely, the agency. That would ensure that agencies could not use the clause as a loophole to put the onus on the client, or "principal" in the Bill's terms, to pay the minimum wage. There could be some advantage in that. But it is difficult to judge the extent of the benefit because it is difficult to judge the likelihood of an agency being able to get away with such a course of action. I believe that this is an issue which is finely balanced. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for advancing the matter for debate. On balance I believe that the clause provides a better outcome as drafted. The amendment would go too far unnecessarily by interfering too much in existing arrangements.
  When we drafted the clause we sought to reflect the reality of what happens now. Sometimes the principal may clearly have the responsibility for paying the wages and in such cases the obligation to pay the minimum wage would and should rest with the principal. In other words, an agency worker may be paid either by the agency or the client, as the noble Baroness said. It makes sense in assuming the existence of a contractual relationship to follow that flexible practice and to assume that the obligation to
  1438
  pay the minimum wage lies with whoever is responsible for payment or, where that is unclear, with whoever makes payment.
  The clause as drafted also meets the problem of arrangements involving more than three parties—that is to say, where more than one agent is involved. The criterion for deciding who is legally responsible for paying the minimum wage is whoever is responsible for paying or whoever actually pays the wages at present, as I have indicated.
  Finally, I believe that it is right and sensible, when drafting legislation, to err on the side of caution. While there are arguments in favour of Amendment No. 112, I do not believe that it is possible to predict all the effects of making the changes proposed. While Amendment No. 113 would offer a workable arrangement, on balance the way in which the clause is drafted is preferable. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to consider what I have said and, in the circumstances, to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall consider very carefully and read very carefully everything that the noble Lord has said. At first, I thought Clause 34 stood the law of agency on its head and I could not see any merit in the clause. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said and I shall read carefully what he has said. I suspect that we shall want to return to this matter because I believe that there is much more merit in our very simple amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Armed forces]:
  [Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 [House of Lords staff]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 115:
  Page 25, line 17, leave out ("contract of employment") and insert ("worker's contract").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 115 relates to Clause 38, which applies the Bill to staff of this House. I am glad that we have reached it tonight. As the Bill stands, Clause 38 applies only to such staff who are "employees"—that is to say, staff who have a contract of employment with the Corporate Officer of this House.
  The clause was originally drafted in this way to reflect the present reality, confirmed by the House authorities, that all staff of this House in fact have employment contracts. However, partly in the light of views expressed in another place, the Government have in the meantime reflected further on this clause. In particular, they have considered it preferable to treat staff of the other place and this House on an equal footing. Clause 39 differs from Clause 38 in applying to workers who are not employees, as well as to employees. It is also considered more prudent

  1439
  to ensure that the law reflects not only the present reality but is also capable of applying to any reasonably likely future arrangements. It is not, of course, any part of my responsibilities in government, but I believe it is not completely out of the question that some individuals might be engaged to do work in this place under arrangements other than a contract of employment.
  It is for those reasons that the Government have tabled Amendment No. 115, which I ask the Committee to support. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
  Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  General Affairs Council, 8–9 June
  General Affairs Council, 8–9 June
  Sierra Leone: Mercenary Forces
  Sierra Leone: Mercenary Forces
  Crown Exemption from Non-domestic Rates
  Crown Exemption from Non-domestic Rates
  Special Areas of Conservation: UK Proposals
  Special Areas of Conservation: UK Proposals
  A.3 Kingston By-pass: Road Accident Casualties
  A.3 Kingston By-pass: Road Accident Casualties
  Mr. Al Fayed
  Mr. Al Fayed
  Rough Sleeping in Westminster
  Rough Sleeping in Westminster
  Social Security Expenditure Forecast
  Social Security Expenditure Forecast
  Interest Rate Rises: Effects
  Interest Rate Rises: Effects
  North West Region: Tax Liability
  North West Region: Tax Liability
  Sandline International
  Sandline International
  Education Action Zones: Promoters
  Education Action Zones: Promoters
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  School Organisation Committee Powers
  School Organisation Committee Powers
  Selective School Admission Abolition: Timetable
  Selective School Admission Abolition: Timetable
  Grant-maintained Schools: Financial Self-management
  Grant-maintained Schools: Financial Self-management
  Grammar School Ballots: Constituencies
  Grammar School Ballots: Constituencies
  Children of Service Personnel: SEN Provision
  Children of Service Personnel: SEN Provision
  Gulf War Personnel: Biological Samples
  Gulf War Personnel: Biological Samples
  Northern Ireland: Role of JPs
  Northern Ireland: Role of JPs
  Scotland: Education Expenditure
  Scotland: Education Expenditure
  Scotland: Secretary of State's Special Advisers
  Scotland: Secretary of State's Special Advisers
  Scotland: Roads Programme Review
  Scotland: Roads Programme Review
  Aberdeen By-pass: Representations
  Aberdeen By-pass: Representations
  Law Officers: Appearances as Counsel
  Law Officers: Appearances as Counsel
  Fisheries Council, 8 June
  Fisheries Council, 8 June
  Fishing Prohibitions
  Fishing Prohibitions
  Beef Export Ban: Legality
  Beef Export Ban: Legality
  Cattle Tracing System: Launch Date
  Cattle Tracing System: Launch Date